Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicmed


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. No evidence of sources which would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sicmed

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article about a research project for which no independent sources can be found. Article itself is too full of bureaucracy speak to ascertain what the actual goal of the project is, or who might benefit from it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unfortunately. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of WP:N and WP:RS This is a bureaucratic article. --Artene50 (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no coverage to establish notability. Note that I removed some content from the article as it was copied from the SICMED site which does not have a compatible CC license. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, there are no sources to support the content and to built notability.  →TSU tp* 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. I found many mentions of the project but no results, no reliable sources to establish notability. If the project produces results later, it can be recreated but its not suitable as an article now per WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.