Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COST Action FP1105 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COST_Action_FP1105

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. — Coren ^(talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COST Action FP1105

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

Declined PROD; WP:NOTJOURNAL and not much else. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT --No unique names 04:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Shorthate (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible content. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Google searches turned up no evidence that substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources exists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 4 December 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.