Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWISSENET


 * 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; without prejudice against recreation if notability is proven. - Philippe 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AWISSENET

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability; google news search yields 0 hits; google web search only 154 hits. Contested prod, with no reason given to keep article. Comment on original prod by User:Atama adds: "This is apparently a rather obscure project. The actual importance of this is not established, and the fact that it has been largely ignored by reliable sources shows that at least at this stage it's nothing worth having an article about." -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if the concerns are related to the fact that the project is rather obscure then I can certainly improve that by elaborating on the objectives that the project deals with so that things becomes more clear.

Regarding the comment that google search has a small number of hits I think that this will improve over time since project's results will become available. I wonder though what is a sufficient number of hits that will justify retaining an entry in wikipedia (AWISSENET has been created middle of February and by then the google search hits are constantly increased)?

Since I am quite new in the wikipedia community (not as a user but in submitting articles I would like also a clarification regarding the categorization of my article as orphaned. The explanation mentions that I can improve this by creating links to the article but does it mean from other wikipedia pages (AWISSENET is an acronym and surely it is related to many concepts with related articles in Wikipedia), from external entities or both?Nprigour (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.