Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-CRIN

: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. Black Kite (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

=[[F-CRIN]]=

:{{la|F-CRIN}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/F-CRIN Stats])

:({{Find sources|F-CRIN}})

This article relates to a project which has been commissioned for Proofs of Concept etc. and was flagged for CSD A7. This was opposed by the article creator on grounds that "F-CRIN has no website and it is the only way for users to obtain information about it"; CSD was then removed by IPs. Wikipedia is not a webhosting site for project documents that have no other outlet so the article was Prodded on grounds that "No evidence that this project has achieved the notability required to appear on Wikipedia." Prod removed by IP without comment; stated concerns remain so bringing it to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development to which "European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network" redirects.Novangelis (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete That is a novel argument - "we need to keep this article BECAUSE it has no independent sources" - but it doesn't fly. And it doesn't appear to be true; information is available on the web [http://www.aviesan.fr/en/aviesan/home/aviesan-news/f-crin here]. This agency doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORG guidelines, with no independent sourcing at the article and literally zero coverage at Google News Archive. I oppose a redirect because the proposed target article doesn't mention this subject and IMO is not likely to; it covers a much broader portfolio than this agency. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Kindness is, in general, a good thing, but MelanieN is way too kind in calling the argument to keep this article "novel". The word I would use is "spurious". We keep articles about notable topics. We don't keep articles about non-notable topics written by people who are trying to get attention for the topic by writing a Wikipedia article. We are not a free web hosting service - we are an encyclopedia of articles about notable topics, and this one isn't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

::(Sometimes "kindness" can be hard to distinguish from "sarcasm." --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

  • Delete - No sources as noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 29 June 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.