Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahili 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dahili Network

While this information may or may not be factually correct (a Google search turns up nothing), the article is so poorly written that it defies attempts to recast it in standard English WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It's unsalvageably incoherent. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, this is not what Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G1 means by "patent nonsense". The term explicitly excludes "poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc." I have tried to clean up the text so that it makes more sense. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The claims made in the article are intriguing, but this Google News archive search doesn't turn up anything useful. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can't quite understand the article: it isn't made clear if this is something actually in operation (which may be notable), or whether it's simply proposed and in-development (which probably isn't notable yet). Lack of reliable sources is also a concern. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... though it is a fairly nice description of a Local Area Network in Turkey. I don't see its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a section on language--there needs to be some language work. A section on Gerontology? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Its hard to judge because the citations and external links are not any help. Doesn't seem notable, or encyclopedic. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (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.