Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acmetal

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acmetal[edit]

PROD contested by IP with no reason given (and somehow stupidly re-prodded again one month later. I need a vacation or something). My reasoning stands: Per WP:NOT#NEWS, appears to be a one-time event, no significant coverage in reliable sources indicating otherwise, Google News doesn't indicate any further and recent usage for this neologism. MLauba (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is not an event. There are a good few reliable articles covering this [1][2][3] --neon white talk 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The coining of the term and its usage is, however, a one-time event. MLauba (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a encyclopaedia article about a subject, in this case a proposed new currency, not about a "term and its usage". The subject is, as Neon white stated, not an event. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This still doesn't address WP:NOT#NEWS. MLauba (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Neon white's source in The Australian cited above, in conjunction with things such as this Daily Telegraph source, seem to indicate otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (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.