Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three screen network
- 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. Mkativerata (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three screen network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD-contested by article creator. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, advertises a company at the end, feels like a misplaced AfC submission. elektrikSHOOS 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. A whopping twelve Ghits, two of which are Wikipedia (and one of those hits is to an article by the same editor that was deleted only hours ago). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above comments. Editor doesn't seem to understand the concept of what is notable enough for an encyclopedia.--Dmol (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to be an attempt to coin a brand-new neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Detele non-notable neologism.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:06, 6 August 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.