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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Society for Trenchless Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination: PROD, dePROD, rePROD cycle. Most recent PROD application argued for deletion with the statement: Although Trenchless technology is worth an article, the Indian Society does not appear to have reliable sources testifying to its importance. If that technology is actually used in India, there should be coverage both in the regular press and the trade press which talk about it. If there is no coverage, surely we don't need an article. WP is not for advertising or promotion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Clearly spam and not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as Spam. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My apology for overlooking the previous PROD, which was on 13 August. (I should have opened an AfD instead of prodding a second time on 21 August). I continue to support the version of my remarks quoted above by User:Ceyockey. (His procedural nom does not count as a !vote in the AfD, so this is my vote here). The Indian Society should receive its own press coverage to be included in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepSorry guys but it is True in India we too have trenchless technologyDaxterooney5 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I'm sorry to point out that "truth", "notability" and "verifiability" are three completely different concepts. "Truth" does not a topic representation here guarantee, while "verifiabilty" opens the door to inclusion and "notability" allows the article to walk through that open door. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly spam, copied directly from their own website (see [1] this) and wouldn't pass WP:ORG even if rewritten. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 26 August 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.