Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tele-TASK

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-TASK

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

relevance, advertisement Kuuhkuuh (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the POV tag because the article reads like an advert. Also, I highly doubt it is relevant, due to the fact that recording systems used in universities are quite ordinary, and this one has simply been given a name - it is clearly not an outstanding or noteworthy technological invention, but rather advertising. Does giving a ordinary technological device a name suffice for it being worthy of an wikipedia article? Don't think so! Namedropping at its best. --Kuuhkuuh (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 05:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything remarkable described in the article, much of whose substantial editing has been by accounts whose names include the initials of the institution associated with the tool. And so too are the given sources, which is also the case for various Google Books entries. That said, the tool does get a brief section of coverage in this book but as one among many distance learning tools. This feels like insufficient evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with AllyD, couldn't have said it better. To the point, this article is not relevant. --Kuuhkuuh (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2012 (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.