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 merge to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Courcelles 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISTAG[edit]

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

Obscure European "advisory body". No independent sources about this "body". Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or upmerge a relevant summary into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. These EU projects (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GENESIS – Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems and others in the past) are probably closest to notability en masse as a systematic distribution of funding to favoured institutions, so should possibly be covered as such rather than individual mission-statement-speak articles. In late breaking news it appears that ISTAG has concluded that there should be more of the same, with "sufficient budget allocation". Nice work if you can get it. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Framework Programmes as a whole certainly are notable and although the article doesn't show it, there must be a ton of references out there. The individual projects funded by the Framework Program are almost never notable, though (by analogy, NIH is very notable, but hardly any of the individual grants it gives are). However, as far as I can see, ISTAG is not directly related to the FPs. If a merge were the outcome of this AfD, Directorate-General for Information Society and Media (European Commission) might be a better target. --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge per comments above. I don't know how relevant this program is in the grand picture, so it may be wp:undue to just dump it in the Framework article. Not notable by itself, failing WP:GNG. The PR person creating these should be encouraged to create a table in some notable article, instead of these mission-speak stubs. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It seems just an advisory board for the larger org. I worked a bit merging a few of the defunct research projects into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development but there is much more to do than I have time right now. I started doing prose, but maybe a table might be better if it all becomes too boiler plate for each project. This is not a project but an advisory group that seems to have survived into the seventh round, so more likely to be notable than projects that came and went. I cannot always follow the newspeak to determine which orgs do what, however. W Nowicki (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (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.