Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative system


 * 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. There is consensus that the article consisting of current material would be not notable; it is likely that an article with the same name but different content can exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Innovative system

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is one specific use of the phrase innovative system used by one company that has become an encyclopedia article, but shouldn't have. SchreiberBike talk 00:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has had notability and essay tags on it since July 2011.
 * The one reference available on line does not say anything about innovative systems.
 * A web search for "innovative system" has many hits, but none near the top (except for this Wikipedia article) seem to relate to what this article is talking about. A web search for "innovative systems" and "World Bank Institute" together don't seem to lead to anything related to this article.
 * The primary author, User:ScrollRaider, describes http://www.mcqube.com/ as their home page. That page uses the phrase innovative system in a way that seems unique to that company.
 * The article references quantum mechanics in a way that doesn't seem to have anything to do with my very limited understanding of quantum mechanics.
 * Delete. The Newell book referenced in the article doesn't use the phrase either (so far as I was able to find searching both Google Books and the Amazon.com "look inside" feature), which makes this WP:SYNTH. bd2412  T 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * comment I removed the prod because I thought it needed discussion, not because I thought we should necessarily keep the article. The reference referred to make rather strong claims for its importance, but to back this up there would need to be evidencethat the world back uses the term in the same manner  DGG' ( talk ) 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or of there is no consensus to delete, re-title due to the appropriation of a common plainly-understood English phrase to mean something very technical. In plain English, an "innovative system" is a system that is innovative (duh!). davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 22.  — cyberbot I  Notify Offline 07:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, unreadable essay that does little more than elaborate on a dictionary defimition. Lots of poorly-assembled long words adding up to nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are we sure this was not created using corporate bullshit generator? No such user (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about corporate BS, but it seems to be generating Wikipedia SNOW. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:58, 23 January 2014 (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.