Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single European Sky ATM Research

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 keep. — Joseph Fox 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single European Sky ATM Research

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

Non-notable project. Only in-passing mention in one independent source. Does not meet WP:GNG. Source added by IP who de-PRODded the article is not independent and does not show notability. Crusio (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok, I can accept that the website from the European Commission, who funds a third of the overall SESAR budget of 2.1 Billion Euros with public money, and the corresponding legislative documents, are not technically independent sources. Still, in my opinion, this information and some common sense should keep anybody from hastily deleting the article, however imperfect it may currently be. Below you can find a quick attempt to list some other sources, hopefully at least some of which you can consider to be sufficiently independent:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4448408.stm
- http://www.atcglobalhub.com/ReadATMInsightNews.aspx?editid=newsid760&titleid=editid86
- https://www.ncoic.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12026/SESAR_NextGen_Comparison%2020090317FINAL.pdf
- Andrew Cook (editor): European Air Traffic Management: Principles, Practice and Research, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007

Regards, the IP who de-PRODded the article / 79.253.22.82 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBased on the article, this project is still in the planning stages. Too soon for an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CRYSTAL? If the article has a expectation tone, then it must not be kept (which is the case), when the project sees the day of light, then it must be recreated with in-depth details, but so far I don't see a reason why it should be kept. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The project started around 2005. Currently, its main phase (development) is in full force. 79.253.43.246 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To claim a project can't be notable until it's finished is absurd. If the project were suggested but not begun, WP:CRYSTAL might apply, but this ongoing. The nominator's contention that there is "only in-passing mention in one independent source" is difficult to comprehend. I added several in-depth sources, there are plenty more out there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (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.