Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTP-II MATER

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTP-II MATER

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability since Marasmusine added the tag seven years ago; time for a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the link to cordis for this project, given in the first deletion request above does not work. this is the perfect example that links pointing to somewhere on the web, are not reliable. some years ago, i have started to open lemmata of EU-research projects to have reliable links. all were deleted, MATER is the last remain. this ends up in a discussion about the relevance of research projects. the related article in wikipedia says, that a project must be large to be relevant to wikipedia. hard to find the propper definition of "large" for a research project - where is the limit in euro or man power or topics between relevant and not relevant. i am an inclusionist and i am wondering, why there is a limitation for research projects producing new knowledge for mankind. the eu spends billions of euro for its international reasearch and interesting findings are beeing published every year. tiresome discussions. Hannes Grobe (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is repeatedly relisted rather than closed due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The EU Marine Science and Technology program under which this was funded may well be notable. I'm dubious that research grants, even large ones, are really a good subject for encyclopedia articles, but if they are then the Mediterranean Targeted Project may be large enough and written-about enough to be notable. I think it's quite unlikely that a single phase of a research grant (which is what the title refers to) is itself notable. And in any case we have only primary sources. If there were a larger parent article to redirect to I'd say merge but in the absence of one I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2015 (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.