Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POOLSAFE

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POOLSAFE

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

No independent third-party sources about the organization. Fails WP:GNG. Note that there are other products and organizations named Poolsafe so be careful when finding sources. Contested prod by article author. shoy (reactions) 12:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be an advertisement. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Effectively a posting of information underlying the proposition for an EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development funding project, some of which have previously featured at AfD. All projects commence with aspirations, the question here is whether they have attained encyclopaedic notability rather than great expectations. In this case, the given independent references are to research preceding the project itself, and much of the content is promotional text on the consortium partners (which would require removal were this article to survive). The project was due to conclude in June 2016, so may be WP:TOOSOON for delivery of any substantial practical consequences to become apparent (such as from the Lardelo pilot mentioned in the article, but not in the offered reference). As things stand, though, I do not see demonstrated notability. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2016 (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.