Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TASIM


 * 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 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

TASIM

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Keeping this short: nothing in the article suggests it passes Notability. Low key governmental imitative that is trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion: <==Follow us==

Facebook (facebook.com/tasimnet) Twitter (twitter.com/tasimnet) Youtube (youtu.be/tasimnet) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Little notability. Prose style also seems influenced by the CBG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC).
 * COmment: I've done a bit of moving about before realizing this was still at AfD. (I registered it briefly when I first deleted it but then chose to restore and move it.) In any case, while there is some serious issues with tone and copyvio, I would prefer that this go through AfD to decide whether or not it passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it definitely uses copyright content in a way that would be infringement if the contributors don't own the content - under the circumstances, however, I think it's plausible they do, so I've left a note about licensing material, and will follow up. Wily D 11:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of it is copyright violation.  This is like a film.  A film isn't notable until the film starts shooting.  This is yet another multi-government pipe dream that has been around for 6 years.  When the cable is up and running, they do warrant articles.  Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2014 (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.