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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D4Science[edit]

D4Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All the article's sources are affiliated with the subject. I had a go at finding independent reliable sources but couldn't locate any that didn't seem to be reprinted or retooled press releases. In the absence of any acceptable sources I'm assuming the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Psychonaut (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nominator♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it seems the common paradigm of EU research projects: they think of a cool sounding acronym, get one of their grad students to write a promotional Wikipedia article, then go through the money in a couple years and do it again with a different acronym. Really wish they could instead work on a smaller number of more sustainable articles, like, perhaps European Grid Infrastructure. Just found a few more of these, sigh: Virtual Digital Library Hybrid Data Infrastructure for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2016 (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.