Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRIDEC


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

TRIDEC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

What is it about these 7th Framework projects? They never seem particularly useful but the article authors still think ikndependent refs are not needed. &mdash; RHaworth 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've flagged the COI given the original (now banned) account names. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the UK participating institutions, so notable is this project that it returns a blank search on the University of Southampton website; and just this at Queen Mary and Westfield College. Achievements: "none to report yet". AllyD (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability in achievement etc., without which it is not even deserving of an upmerge into the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development article. (Maybe these articles about projects that may or may not deliver some tangible outcome at some future point are akin to articles about unreleased albums, films or vapourware, that fall under WP:CRYSTAL?) AllyD (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDY (sources are not independent of the subject, with the possible exception of the Spiegel article, which only makes a passing reference to the subject and is therefore no good as a source anyway). I couldn't find any other independent reliable sources in a Google search.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:33, 12 August 2011 (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.