Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHOSFOS

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. Sandstein 07:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHOSFOS

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

A research and development project. Being funded by the European Commission does not make it automatically notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another crystal-gazing and largely unreadable article about a research project funded by the European government. There is an offsite project dedicated to injecting articles about these projects. When any results come from this research, it may become notable, but more likely will still belong in an article about the technology developed rather than the project itself. And until that technology actually exists.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The technology may be a long way away, but the project exists today, and the article is about the project. And references are available to establish notability. See this search. This resource may also be helpful. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)PHOSFOS[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment There seems to be lack of third party RS establishing notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Optics.org appears to be independent of the project, and has conducted an interview with the lead researcher on this, but it's all at WP:CRYSTAL level right now. Pcap ping 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore when (if ever) project succeeds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep, per WP:NOTPAPER, with removal or alteration of WP:CRYSTAL content. Under ideal conditions it would be merged with a more comprehensive article on touch sensors or on use of embedded fibers to sense material stresses (as they aren't the only ones using this approach), but finding a merge target would require more time than I'm able to put in at the moment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if it's not at the Pikachu level of notability it's a seven letter subject starting with P. Seriously this is a high-tech collaborative R&D project which is part of the Seventh Framework Programme - ie already identified as a key EU industrial R&D programme. It has a budget over three years of 2,475,569 eurosfields)[1] - not massive but reasonably substantial. It involves various prominent European universities and other institutions in research with a mutliplicity of potentially important applications in civil engineering and medicine (not to mention other more frivolous [[2][3]. Industry newsletter cover includes http://www.fos-s.be/projectsadv/be-en/1/detail/item/604/cat/19/ http://rdmag.com/News/2008/10/Optical-foils-could--be-basis-for-artificial-skin/ http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=36120 http://www.opticalfibersensors.org/news/be-en/143/detail/item/1305/ http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=5959e74fdec54b57859fe30988c9add5&SourceDatabaseId=9900e74f1158484985c6bf0d2aa3cc2a http://optics.org/cws/article/research/34671 Is it really being said that anyone who wants to find out about PHOSFOS should find out that it's not good enough for Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia inhabit the real world? Opbeith (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2010 (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.