Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Jilmart

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Jilmart

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

I do not think it as notably since there are so many local language colloquial terms. Wikipedia is not dictionary. It's is good to add these some of the line with Computer fraud Anton^Talk 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage. APerson (talk!) 14:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant coverage is available.[url|https://www.google.co.uk/#q=computer+jilmart][url|https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AqRRNpSGwuLhCmHsit6ngwc4hJp4?fr=yfp-t-903-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=computer%20jilmart] Madunai (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madunai, would it be possible to link directly to the sources you're talking about? APerson (talk!) 02:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could probably be improved in a more encyclopedic style rather than a lexiconic manner itself. Sometimes it's inevitable that an encyclopedia supposed to be used as a dictionary pertaining to the context, especially when a dictionary is lagging the needs of the reader. It's also not possible to include an encyclopedia in a specified division of knowledge and that's why it's remarkably known as Encyclopedia. Galtikka (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything in this article, in its current form, that establishes it's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reason to keep this article as many nations have different words for computer fraud UMDP (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Start using Wiktionary please, that's what it's there for. The arguments for keeping have no basis in policy. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2015 (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.