Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConTech

ConTech

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. " It was deprodded by User:Den q1 (WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Bottom line, this is a poorly referenced neologism that does not seem to rise to the level it merits an encyclopedia entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this simply seems to be another "what it means" and its sources equally showing, information suggests nothing else and there's nothing to suggest a fully independent article of its own. Likely best simply mentioned at another article. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]