Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social engineering-Knowledge Database

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) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social engineering-Knowledge Database

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

Reads like a rambling blog post (and indeed seems to be copied word-for-word from one). It's not clear that there is any actual implementation of this idea, and no indication that it is important, notable, or mentioned in any third-party independent source. Psychonaut (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be WP:COPYVIO, and perhaps WP:NONSENSE. LotLE×talk 01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://designfiles.org/dokuwiki/skdb is PD, so no copyvio can occur.--Kozuch (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. That's the only reason why this article was listed here rather than tagged as db-copyvio. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per WP:CRYSTAL, but also very poorly written. It's an initiative to create a shared library or repository of open source hardware designs, so components can be shared between projects, etc. See this presentation for a more intelligible description. Mostly vaporware at this time, and hardly any independent coverage. Pcap ping 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This also comes close to apparently meaningful content that, upon examination, is the sort of thing that nobody can reasonably expect to make sense of. Maybe if we direct a graviton wave synchronized with the dilithium lattice.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 26 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.