Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Insight
- 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Source Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has been unsourced and has notability issues for over a decade. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG ZimZalaBim talk 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''(talk|contribs) 04:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There are some reviews out there in trade journals, but the independence of those is highly questionable. I cannot find any sources meeting criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.