The result was speedy deleted by JamesBWatson. Logan Talk Contributions 23:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
local party with local notability; fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elmwood Park is a town of 24,000 people and has two major political parties, one of which is the Neighborhood Voice Party. It is no surprise that the only reference to the party is in the Elm Leaves / Pioneer Press -- the village's weekly local paper -- as the town is small and not of major relevance to major media outlets. The Elm Leaves is the village's only local paper and contains at least three articles on each party.
The Neighborhood Voice Party is a registered political party which can be verified through the Illinois State Board of Elections.
This page should not be deleted because it contains factual, verifiable information of historical, political and local interest; however, the page can be edited to remove references to improper categories (such as "Major Political Party"). I will remove such references if it is decided that the page should not be slated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyW18 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion; fails WP:ENT Noiraygeb (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snow delete. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability. A mockup and design created by a private citizen, the coverage of the vessel itself seems to come exclusively from youtube and amateur sites. Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, independent film with absolutely no third-party coverage. WP:NF and WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 22:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Mandsford 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
There's been quite an edit war over this biography lately, driving the subject, User:RussNelson, to start removing content out of frustration at the interpretation of Wikipedia's editing rules by User:Toddst1 and others. He also applied a prod tag, which is inappropriate as the deletion is not uncontroversial. Whether other editors view this as the subject seriously wanting this bio deleted or not - which can influence the decision of the closing admin - I leave to them. It's clear that we need to assess the notability of this biography, and that won't be accomplished at AN/I, where this is now featured, and it won't be accomplished via edit warring. I am bringing this here because I believe we need to properly assess whether this biography meets inclusion guidelines, not because I have an opinion that it must be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Music in psychological operations. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet general notability guidelines. Has not been improved since June 2010. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedily deleted by another admin per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Narimizadeh. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of an Iranian Sound Engineer. The article only links to his homepage, studio page, imdb page, and a directory listing. My Google searches show only listings in some film credits, but no third party reliable sources as required by WP:N. Zachlipton (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
school that in no way demonstrates any sort of outside notability Yaksar (let's chat) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to The Comedians (novel) Mandsford 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional hotel, may be appropriate to be merged either to the book or the hotel page Sadads (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Nomination was an accident and has been withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~Araignee (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 deletion requested by author JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Youth footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level yet. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks evidence of notability. Created inappropriately for WP:POINT Glaucus (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE --169.237.10.137 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced BLP that fails to show how the subject meets WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a living person, a singer in a band that has not released any material, neither played any show. Obviously, there is no article about the band. Furthermore, the article contains a lot of external links and features a link to the person's entry on Wiktionary. Not notable. Maimai009 18:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable aspect of the show. Poorly sourced over-coverage of a minor part of the show that is already well covered in the main article. Ridernyc (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability (doesn't say what he is "chief editor" of; also WP:AUTO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very short, badly written, unsourced article about a living person. No explanation why this person is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Maimai009 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than a how-to guide to driving in the wet; non-notable subject. ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, tending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable small law firm, article appears to be promotional to boot. -- Y not? 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per criterion g11 spam -- Y not? 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor government official; insufficient notability for WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect by nominator. I just now found Dhikr, which is clearly a better article on this topic.Scientizzle 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is essentially a dictionary definition that lacks proper sourcing. Furthermore, the article is little more than a WP:COATRACK for Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and the competing groups that claim to be his true followers. Now, the term is appears to be at least used as a name in Arabic, but I can't find anything that makes it fit as an encyclopdic topic. — Scientizzle 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request (at WP:REFUND or my talk). Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Movie made by someone without an article here, and doesn't have any notable actors. Also unsourced, and most likely a vanity page (it appears unrelated to the Canadian Dream page that was AfDed before). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Liberty to merge if desired. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largely WP:OR and plot summary; citations merely verify appearance, and do nothing to assert real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with multiple issues for almost a year, this "article" is esentially a poetically-sounding advert without much encyclopedic content. A quick internet search revealed no credible sources about the project apart from a couple of reviews in non-reliable-looking webzines. — Yerpo Eh? 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mandsford 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, not clearly notable. 'Visakha Museum, Visakhapatnam, India is a "source" but I don't know if a museum can be called a source Ingadres (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; non-notable player who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Apart from one paragraph on the website of a historian specialized in Guantanamo (repeating some statements from government documents), there are no reliable independent sources about this person. His lack of name also makes it impossible to do a decent search for further sources. Fram (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost orphan page, linked only by AgentSheets and originally created by user Dragentsheets. Only two substantial edits from someone else: one from User:Ozten, the other from a French academic IP adding a link to a paper published by French scholars. Also, the original antiobjects paper has seven citations, and Google (Books, Scholar) references to Antiobject(s) almost invariably refer to something completely different (certainly not computer science. --balabiot 12:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 deletion requested by author of only substantial content. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. A fair number of articles by her could be found: however, not a single source about here seems to be available to indicate that she is notable. Journalists are not deemed notable because of the number of articles they have written, nor by the quality or impact of those, but only because of the attention the journalist has received. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. m.o.p 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book self-published through lulu at £211.21 (claims to have sold 1067). Infobox claims publication by Oxford University Press and Bantam Books. Other than unreliable entry at openlibrary.com, I can find no evidence for this. Peridon (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per checkuser evidence. This is obviously User:Jessica Liao. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this section does not get improved, then there is no point of having an article that does not provide a worldwide perspective. The section is strictly from a North American perspective. If someone can improve on it, I would be happy to keep this article. For now this article is horrible with this section in it, which is why I’m proposing for deletion. That information in that section is entirely wrong. They used the sources for misinformation. Here in the US, inclusion only means that a student is in regular classes full time, not partially in regular classes. If it were partially inclusion in the US, then that would be mainstreaming. I don’t see how that statement reflects a worldwide perspective. Schildy819 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll be glad to userfy/incubate this if someone thinks they can fix it up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article WP:SYNTH and is a personal essay reproduced by author on blog. No way to make it encyclopedic without complete rewrite. Coffeepusher (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. lifebaka++ 18:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created over a month ago. At the time the creator asked for time to develop it so I removed my speedy tag. But over a month on there hasn't been much development. Although the info in the article can no doubt be verified as correct, I just don't see how it's notable (and therefore worthy of an article). Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musician does not appear to meet WP:BAND. nn123645 (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional term. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 07:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
person does not meet notability guidelines
The result was delete. Happy to incubate or userfy this and (almost) all my other deletions for someone willing to work on it. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider I am notable in accordance with wiki criteria on two counts:
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional page for a subject that fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability tests. Creator and primary editor has only contributed to this and a handful of related articles. Vast sections have no references, particularly those that describe alleged contributions to music, theater, journalism, academia, and literature. I have not been able to find any independent sources for these claims, or any sources whatsoever beyond a handful of blogs. The extensive "Bibliography" appears to be entirely self-published works. TJ Black (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever TJ Black is, he/she doesn't know how to research on the Internet very well. This entity claims the subject's books are self-published when in fact none of them are -- take for instance publishers Soft Skull Press, Black Lawrence Press, Tor/Forge Books, Carroll & Graf, to name a few, all of which have an extensive business history. It appears that TJ Black is vetting off a personal vendetta against the subject, perhaps in sex-work research and literature, and personal attacks on a subject's wiki page that lack professional acumen are not for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worfpoe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Worfpoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He has a new book out with Don Webb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higherednerd (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Higherednerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "ham steak" is not in and of itself notable. This might merit a section in the main article about ham, but not a stand-alone article. This article is a stub, created a year ago with the promise by the original author, "DON'T DELETE! WE WILL IMPROVE SOON!" but he or she never did. I think this is thinly-veiled linkspam for the one "source" cited. (Contested PROD, which was removed by an anon IP editor with little or no explanation given.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable as a) a sub-genre of self-help books or alternately b) a literary phenomenon in the "seduction community." Coverage tends to discuss the named books as part of the "seduction community" phenomenon; there's no indication that "seduction literature" is a notable thing in and of itself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject, insufficient information Ocean Shores 03:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC) My mistake. Neutral then →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. The content is available under the redirect for anyone caring to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't even realize this had been nominated so many times. Anyway, my reasons are the same as every other nominating editor's: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; "everyone uses this phrase" is not an argument for notability; fame in the "seduction community" does not translate to notability; passing mentions in articles on other things do not satisfy the notability guidelines. This term simply has not received the necessary coverage, and the article is, as it apparently always has been, a mass of original research. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These terms ("bitch shield," "demonstration of value") are not notable; they have not received the requisite recognition in reliable sources. Nor has the idea of "seduction community" jargon received such recognition, which might possibly justify keeping the article even if none of the terms were individually notable. "Neg" is the only one that might be worth keeping, but it would need a more neutral title than "Neg (seduction)," which was the page name before a merge. (Note that I nominated this recently, but that closed as no consensus due to a WP:TRAINWRECK. I'm nominating separately now.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G7, requested by author. The author had also contested the proposed deletion of the page, which is why I started the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a laundry list of problems. It's original research: it's User:MyArkhamHorror's interpretations of a game. It cites no independent reliable sources. The fan fiction in question is his own fic, so there's a COI issue in play. Hand-in-hand with the lack of independent sources, the stories aren't covered anywhere, so they aren't notable. To top it off, it sounds like the stories haven't even been written yet. I don't quite think this is a speedy candidate. However, I suggest deletion in the strongest possible way. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be deleating it, well apparently I cant so whoever does it.....
MyArkhamHorror
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, future releases are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was a proposed deletion which I declined on the basis that it had previously been undeleted from a separate proposed deletion.
Argument in the most recent proposed deletion was "No in-depth coverage of this person available. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG." I'm passing this on to AfD on procedural grounds, there's evidence that there are folks who believe this merits deletion, and there's evidence that there are folks who contest that, so AfD it is. j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD (September 2010) for this Australian indie band reached a consensus to delete on the grounds of failing WP:BAND. The text was userfied and it was returned to mainspace in November 2010 with additional WP:RS. I had deleted as a G4 but have been persuaded that this was not strictly applicable so have brought it back to AFD instead. I can see that they have made some progress, winning some kind of local competition and gigging at festivals (although that was before the last AFD) but the question is, is it enough? I don't know. nancy 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews [37]. and the Spanish and Portuguese versions of this article are also unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly anything in gnews [38].IMDB confirms one appearance in an episode and an uncredited appearance. hardly major roles. also nominating her twin Polly Duniam for the same reasons (her article is almost identical to her sister). LibStar (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing of note happened after Idol. Precedent seems to suggest that low-seeds get redirected or deleted unless they do something of note. She has not; every source I found ties directly into Idol. WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's done absolutely nothing after placing #11 on American Idol. Nothing at all. Utterly fails WP:MUSIC, textbook WP:BLP1E — no sources found that weren't related to Idol. First AFD was while she was still on Idol; second was speedy closed because it was a disruptive nomination made by a user who AFDed a bunch of Idol contestants willy nilly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of coverage for artists that the Page Bond Gallery has hosted, but the gallery itself gets trivial mentions at best. I'm not seeing enough stand-alone notability for them to pass WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable webmagazine, no reliable third party sources. As it fails currently fails WP:42, and cannot pass that threshold, I believe it should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. A merger discussion may be taken further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of just two schools. One is of low notability and the other is of unknown notability. This article is redundant with the articles on those two schools. Between the two articles on the schools, and Chinese tea culture, there's no need for this one. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-article about a sculptor and painter. No evidence offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of meeting WP:COMPOSER. No independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not related to the articles creator, but I know Alan Wilson from University life in the 1980's. Everything in the article is correct. As a composer he has not received the attention he deserves. His church music is brilliant. So, please keep the article. I found it whilst researching what he is doing now. Jeremy Honeybun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.41.196 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant sources, and fails notability criteria for actors as far as I can see. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company and its equally non-notable product. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: Fails WP:N. What sources we have are either blogs and user-submitted content, or they are trivial mentions in somewhat more reliable, independent sources like the Journal du Web. Both articles were prodded, prod removed by author without showing significant coverage in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason seems to be not notable company and product. Mainly this is because there are no apparent third party unbiased articles. This is partially true I must admit. Though IKAN does have obvious partnerships with notable companies, for example they created and sold a product which is now owned by Oracle (a notable company).
Application Lifecycle Management is a well known term in application development and a term which seems to be notable enough on its own (hence the page). The IKAN ALM software is Application Lifecycle Management software, yet it is different from the rest because it allows the existing development environment of any company to be upgraded to ALM, instead of forcing the client to use new software.
By the way, this software runs in large international companies. Most of the companies in this industry listed on Wikipedia should also be deleted then, because of the same reasons. Best Regards (Johan Van Camp (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, none of the references cited mention the subject. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Borkificator (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]