Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ONTORULE

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 without prejudice . Treating as an uncontested PROD. I'll restore this article upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONTORULE[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the subject. It has been speedily deleted before for A7. The current incarnation has been tagged {{notability}} and {{primarysources}} since May 2010. The only reference is to a page belonging to CORDIS, the official information source for the program that partially funds ONTORULE, and thus not independent—quite possibly the CORDIS page is an ONTORULE press release. —teb728 t c 07:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 February 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) 01:02, 5 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 12 March 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.