Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agile Data Method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 2 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 15:15, 2 April 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agile Data Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable term. Among the external links the only published source is this book, which doesn't establish notability on its own. Created by ScottWAmbler (talk), the same name as the author of the book. "Agile Data" is a vague, umbrella term, and I couldn't find any obvious references to establish notability. Pnm (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (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) 01:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I notice there was a Prod back in 2006 on grounds of this being a non-notable neologism, removed by the original author. I agree with that rationale. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2011 (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.