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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venomics[edit]

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

This is yet another of the very extensive series of articles, now almost all deleted, on various components on the EC Framework programs, all of which, like this one, talk about their plans for doing research, long before they have actually accomplished everything. NOT CRYSTAL is the relevant principle. I think this is probably copypaste, but it would be just as not yet notable if rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Delete This should never have existed in the first place. DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it Agree with nom and DocumentError. Most of these projects never become notable as a project, even though they may be composed of highly notable researchers. All too often, these "collaborative" projects are anything but. They just argue that they'll be collaborating to get the research money and then each component goes its own way. Unless there are sources actually showing that such an ephemeral project actually accomplished something and that something is being covered in RS, these articles should indeed not exist. Most of the times, article creators don't bother with these articles any more once created and I just boldly redirect them to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, only bothering to take them to AfD if the redirect is reverted. As an aside, these project articles almost all claim to be "EU Commission projects", but have as much to do with the EU Commission as any project funded by a US government agency like NIH could claim to be "funded by the Obama administration". --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great and salient point by Randykitty vis a vis the EUC. DocumentError (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 28 December 2013 (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.