Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epernicus

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epernicus[edit]

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

Not notable Natureium (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appears to have subsequently operated as TrialNetworks which was then acquired by DrugDev in 2014 [1]. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding little but passing mentions ([2] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). By the time of a 2010 blog they were presenting themselves on 3 fronts: "our public Epernicus Network, our Epernicus Solutions business, and Epernicus Clinical Research Systems". The first of these appears to be what was presented in the article and possibly the business re-oriented to the third, which continued for a time as TrialNetworks, but that is my speculation. I am not seeing evidence that the attempted network under the Epernicus name attained notability, whether by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2017 (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.