Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mazca (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 9 August 2009 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 10:01, 9 August 2009 by Mazca (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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. No sources could be found to salvage this article, which has no evidence of notability and makes limited sense. ~ mazca talk 10:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) β (View log)
Unsourced, orphaned, vague, and self-contradictory. (Does "digital architecture" have anything to do with buildings? The article says no, but the image says yes.) No signs of improvement in nearly two years it's been on my watchlist, and both of the substantial contributors have not edited since, so I doubt there'll ever be any. Some quick Googling was unsuccessful in turning up any evidence that the phrase is commonly used in this sense. Zetawoof(ΞΆ) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This sounds like the description that a consultancy firm would give about their work and why it's different so they can charge excessive rates. I can find no sourcing that uses the term "digital architecture" in the manner described in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't make sense of it, no claim of notability. JJL (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2009 (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.