Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EARMARK


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

EARMARK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable technology; declined PROD. Research papers describing it have low citation scores on GScholar, and I haven't been able to find other reliable sources that discuss it in-depth. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I could not find anything online that is not authored by Silvio Peroni, Angelo Di Iorio or Fabio Vitali, save for this and there it is clearly a passing mention (dicdef) even if that source turned to be reliable (I am not even sure what that book is, based on the preview). Tigraan (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Could not find sources sufficient to pass WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:27, 1 May 2015 (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.