Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLARIN (research infrastructure)

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. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIN (research infrastructure)

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

So far, this project has yet to bear fruit, at least as far as third party, reliable sources are concerned. A few Google Scholar hits are from announcements for the project at various meetings, and are therefore self-published. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The program appears to be widely adopted throughout a significant portion of Europe. A google search on CLARIN (without the (research infrastructure) part) returns quite a few pages about the program. It seems like it's a fairly new initiative which, per the nominator, may not have produced much in the way of tangible results as of yet. However, general widespread acceptance and discussion of the program seems to imply that it's not very likely to just fade away without bearing fruit. In my opinion, it's just over the line of notability and needs to be expanded from a stub. Snottywong (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument above essentially reduces to "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not explain the notability or significance of its subject matter. Also, failing that, notability is not established in the article and the various sources turned up by Google have problems of being either not independent, or not significant. Although I could be persuaded otherwise by an expert in the field. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like DGG, Delete per Snottywong, who articulates what is best seen as a deletion rationale. Ray^Talk 23:46, 4 November 2009 (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.