Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICT segment and specialisms model Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ICT_segment_and_specialisms_model

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICT segment and specialisms model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No assertion of WP:Notability, zero coverage online apart from organization's own website, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator. Proposed deletion contested by creator on talk page. Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing using the term "ICT" has ever had any real-world relevance outside its own self-centred ivory tower of UK low-end academia. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ICT is overtaking IT as the term of choice in schools, but that doesn't get round the fact that this article is entirely unsourced waffle. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (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.