Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRIALOG Project (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRIALOG Project[edit]

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

As completely lacking independent references. We have a long history of deleting EU short-lived projects such as this, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-ScienceTalk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMET (EU project), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter2Geo, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol-primett (project), etc. Merging and redirecting to CONCORD is also an option. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:57, 10 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, more EU spam. They never seem to learn. By the way, the previous AfD was sorely mistaken. There's a different Trialog project that "offers patients with early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) a two-year programme of residential outpatient care following discharge from a clinic [...]" that gets hits in GS. Another "Trialog" gets a hit here, but it seems to be an unrelated student support network. Searching for Trialog and Concord in the news only turned up a passing mention in a speech. Another passing mention here, in some OECD booklet. There's tiny bit more coverage here and here. Not enough in my opinion for WP:N/WP:ORG. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and tijfo098. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:06, 21 October 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.