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. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPA Adriatic CBC Programme[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG seems like usual europrojectcruft. Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How is it that these Europhiles seem to think independent refs are unnecessary? I have seen several Seventh Framework and similar articles which are equally non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No independent references. Also the whole thing is written as their info sheet about themselves and their program. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.