Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAB computer

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCAB computer

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

Non-notable private academic project, no publications, no relevant hits on Google Books, subject overlaps device for classifying apples Wtshymanski (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into RISC or OISC; the concept is noteworthy as an example of either, if not as its own thing. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Rilak (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: What if there was an article so obscure that no-one ever read it? Could this be it? A little feedback would be helpful here...how else are we going to keep the belly button lint and toenail cippings from building up in the dark corners of the Wikipedia? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What does near silence indicate? Great notability or great obscurity? Rilak (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that if the silence was a sign that the community was shocked that this article was nominated, then I would have found more Ghits. Oh well...we've got room for Pokemons and individual sizes of flashlight batteries, resources are free, right? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is silence, since I thought it is already obvious that this should be deleted... No third-party reliable sources. Everything is based on a single self-published web page. Not notable and not even verifiable. — Miym (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (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.