Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schengen Cloud

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 no consensus‎. due to low participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Cloud[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Created when it was briefly in the news, but never attained sustained coverage nor came to fruition. A failed product could be notable, but it does not appear this one is. Without sourcing to verify this name is a thing (or helpful search), I don't think a redirect is of value. Note on searching, this is not' the cloud-based Schengen area visa processing system. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Schengen Cloud is a concept rather than a well-defined proposal. I added some references from 2015 and 2016 that deal with the concept with multiple names like "Europe-only cloud" and "technological sovereignity" – still the same basic idea. I think it's a notable concept. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Лисан аль-Гаиб. about.com doesn't appear to be a RS and I'm not sure that blurb is enough in its own right, but the journal article may work. Is it specifically about the Schengen cloud or privacy in Europe? It being a concept vs a proposal per your comment is part of my issue. It might be related to European privacy, but I'm not sure it's a notable thing in its own right. Star Mississippi 12:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the existing sources along with this one I just added should be sufficient.Bikerose (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 2 April 2024 (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.