Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUSCII

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PUSCII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There does not seem to be any reliable independent coverage on this center. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two academic and one journalist publication amongst the references, isn't that enough reliable independent coverage? Qrusty (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Small and short-lived infoshop. References are either passing or not independent. gidonb (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. On its face I believe this could be an important place in the cultural history of hacking in the area, but that importance needs to be demonstrated in multiple independent, credible sources. The journal source references some importance but it only mentions it in passing and is not on its own enough to meet GNG. --TonySt (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2025 (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.