Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translectures

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. Michig (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translectures

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

There are a lot of false positives because of the convention of writing Trans. Lectures on references to lectures that have been translated but a gander at Google shows that there is a dearth of reliable sourcing and even the wikipedia article takes second place to the projects social media platform. Google books looks pretty empty too and scholar shows some papers but not a lot of external commentry - just from the project team. In short, this looks like a non-notable EU project and from the denseness of the text I suspect this has been written by the project team, but no point fixing this unless we agree to keep this. For that, the sourcing needs to be substantially improved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project might bear mention at Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, where several other projects are currently listed. I'm not arguing for merger, though, since this page is unreferenced and a search of Google News archives for "Framework Programmes transLectures" returned zero hits. The one web hit Google recommended instead was this Wikipedia article. Notability is in doubt. Cnilep (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of third-party coverage, so a weak delete from me. Morwen - Talk 18:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. No reliable, independent sources can be found to establish notability. I found zero news sources on 10/30; a Google News search today finds one hit, but it appears to be a press release. The http://translectures.eu/ web site has also come on line since my last search, but besides lacking independence, this seems to suggest it is WP:Too soon for coverage here. Cnilep (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON as per Cnilep. -—Kvng 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete — WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and per nom. —Theo polisme 00:52, 17 November 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.