Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConTech Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConTech

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ConTech

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. " It was deprodded by User:Den q1 (WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Bottom line, this is a poorly referenced neologism that does not seem to rise to the level it merits an encyclopedia entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this simply seems to be another "what it means" and its sources equally showing, information suggests nothing else and there's nothing to suggest a fully independent article of its own. Likely best simply mentioned at another article. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- dubious & spammy. No indications that this concept has been noted by reliable third-party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional waffle. No evidence that it's significant promotional waffle. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 20 November 2016 (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.