Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTTC

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GTTC

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

This may not actually be fabricated but rather not well-known and the best my searches found was this. Thus with its less than acceptable state and no signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. @Biscuittin, Rhododendrites, Sulfurboy, and Gbawden: SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more references and I now oppose deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is enough to save it though, not as a hoax but still for notability. Simply for clarity, is that a keep, Biscuittin? SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a keep. Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax or not, I'm seeing almost no information about this -- certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. @Biscuittin: If the sources you're talking about are the ones you added to the article, these are social media sites and entirely primary -- thus neither contributes anything to a determination of notability. Is your keep to be interpreted as saying "it's notable"? That assumes significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources over a period of time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK. I suppose the article can be re-created if more solid information becomes available. Biscuittin (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sources and I can't find any information that suggests that this acronym is widely used. shoy (reactions) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert for some new service created by a company which chose this acronym, seems to be some in-house WP:NEOLOGISM Kraxler (talk) 23:41, 17 August 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.