Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPM CRSP

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. –Darkwind (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPM CRSP

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacks independent coverage and WP:GNG.

To start off, my training as a scientist is in integrated pest management, so I tried looking pretty hard for sources to improve the article cleaning up the COI issues. Even just googling the current name Integrated Pest Management Innovation Lab yields basically a few name drops, mostly from universities that have worked under the project. The most distanced ok source I could find was from the funding agency, but that's all run of the mill description any funding agency will do.

What I can find is that it seems that Virginia Tech hosts most of the collaboration, though it's shared among a few other universities. Simply having a funded collaboration and having a name for it doesn't warrant an article here though. There's nothing sourced to merge, and there doesn't appear to be an obvious redirect target, much less the current IPM CRSP being a likely search term anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's just another project with its own primary sources and its own desire for publicity. Whether this is advertising or not, it's not a fit subject for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sounds interesting, obviously the article would need a lot of work even if it was found to be notable, but I'm saying delete simply due to a lack of actually independant sources (i.e. not from the funding agency for it, or any university working with it) reporting on it from what I can see. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2020 (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.