Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H-Store: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Listing on WP:DELSORT under Software |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by [[WP:GNG]]. Sources offered are all [[WP:PRIMARY]]. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's [[WP:TOOSOON]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by [[WP:GNG]]. Sources offered are all [[WP:PRIMARY]]. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's [[WP:TOOSOON]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>[[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>[[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete'''. This feels similar to the DBeaver page nominated for deletion yesterday in that there is not enough signifiance to it. At the moment I would argue that this would fail [[WP:GNG]]. |
|||
Revision as of 03:04, 3 July 2012
- H-Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This feels similar to the DBeaver page nominated for deletion yesterday in that there is not enough signifiance to it. At the moment I would argue that this would fail WP:GNG.