Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent design (software engineering)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Intelligent design (software engineering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
An unremarkable combination of words for a title, and a content that reflects that: two unrelated dictionary like definitions, one of which has been added by a single purpose account (User:Computertheology) to add a reference to a book recently published (and partially the object of another AfD : Computer Theology). I don't believe there's anything to salvage here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Equendil Talk 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Considered as a dictionary definition supported by a few use-cases, this is not encyclopedic. Considered as an article about the application of decision support systems to system design, this is an inappropriately narrow scope based on an arbitrary phrase used to describe some systems. Considered as an article about a theological concept, this is a non-notable spinout of intelligent design. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a sufficiently notable usage in this context. Even the references are really just using the two words in their original sense rather than as descriptive of any standalone concept. Mcewan (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable as such. I feel like the title is deliberately misleading, given the topic under discussion. More context is necessary to establish notability, IMO. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (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.