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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SARISTU Project

[edit]

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

Article on an EU project suffering from the usual flaws. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Europroject which "promises" something and "is expected to" somethiing else and "has the potential for" yat even more. Hollow promotion. EEng (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References to this article, and changes to the links are pending. Today i had a helpfull conversation with another wiki memeber that explained to me the changes that should be made according to the citations. Please allow me to mention something at this point, this article is about an EU research project, and it is natural that this programme has partners that cooperate in order to achieve their goal and improve aeronautic science research. In that perspective i thaought that having a list of the partners was in any way against wikipedia rules, it seems that i was wrong. Please allow me two days to do the needed modifications to the article. TY in advance --Gmygdak (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having a list of sponsors is not a problem in itself, though with so many it looks like unnecessary detail more appropriate for the project's own website than for an encyclopedia article. The point is that the existence of these sponsors, and the fact that they may themselves be notable, does nothing to establish the Wikipedia:Notability of the project, which requires references showing showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", i.e. evidence that people not connected with the project have thought it important and significant enough to write substantial comment about. See WP:42. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with EEngPetebutt (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2012 (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.