Reason: Article name does not match the subject and I cannot verify which of the two it's actually about or if any of the information in it is correct. Unsourced; previously only referenced to a unreliable source.
Reason: This concept does not appear notable and is written entirely in an
essayish tone. One alleged source does not mention the subject, and the other seems to have always been dead.
Reason: Does not appear to be a notable research initiative. The project's own website is dead, and I can find nothing much else except for WP mirrors.
Reason: Fails
WP:NCORP. The article gives the impression of being properly sourced but, on inspection, the sources are actually about the founder and not the company itself. Indeed,
Jeff Gunther is an almost word-for-word copy of this article. I can find no other sources that would indicate the notability of this minor company.
Reason: Non-notable defunct Linux distro. I can find no sources beyond directory listings of many distributions, certainly nothing substantial and independent.
Reason: This is an infomercial/how-to guide for non-notable software. None of the sources in the article are reliable secondary sources, and I can find nothing better.
Reason: Vague but overly promotional article about an artistic group of some kind. Most of the content is a catalogue of their works, it's entirely unsourced, and I can find nothing that would indicate notability.
Reason: This seems to be a non-notable programming language. The only sources are to the inventor's home age, and I can't find any independent, reliable sources that would indicate notability.
Reason: Blatant advertising brochure sourced only to the company itself. It is full of unsupported assertions and speculations. I can't find anything by searching about this topic except unrelated dog memes.
Reason: Does not appear to be a notable programming language. I can find only a handful of references, and these are articles written by RTML's creators. There is no evidence that the outside world has taken note.
Reason: Poorly sourced, overly detailed listcruft. This would be excessive trivia even if merged into
John Dillinger and the title is not useful as a redirect.
Reason: Does not seem to be notable software. Sourced only to the project's home page and the only thing that comes up in my searches is related to the game of the same name.
Reason: This musical group does not appear to meet
WP:BAND. There are no independent, substantial sources about this band either in the article or that I can find anywhere else.
Reason: Incoherent article about a non-notable topic. The only sources are forums and blogs, and a single sentence name drop in a book. Even if it were possible to determine what this is about, it would need to be
blown up and started from scratch.
Reason: This is the biography of a non-notable musician. The only source in the article is a mere name-drop and I can find nothing better, just hits for different people with the same name.
Reason: I'm not sure this organisation is notable. I can't find much in the way of independent sources, and the current content seems an uncomfortably close paraphrase
Reason: Sourceless article about an unsuccessful band, no credible indication of notability. I also note that the article was written by one of the members.
Reason: This article is 99.9%
original research and the two sources it does have are primary. "Comparison of XYZ" articles usually get deleted if they go to AfD.
Reason: Non-notable list of officials. What little actual text there is, is a word-for-word copy of an ICC press release, which makes it possibly a copyright violation as well.
Reason: Mostly meaningless jargon-laden marketing talk with the lingering odor of promotion. The sources are either dead links, wild goose chases, or serve only to
synthesise the topic from sources not actually about it.
Reason: This buzzword soup is a mish-mash
synthesis of sources that don't mention the phrase "demand modeling". It's also written as a personal essay. I can't find any decent sources on which to base an article about this topic.
Reason: This is just
whole-life cost applied specifically to bridges. The point of this article is unclear, especially since the content is full of buzzwords not specific to bridges anyway.
Reason: Promotional brochure for a company that seems to fail
WP:NCORP. Of the sources, two do not mention the subject, one is a permanent deadlink, and the other is an advertisement.
Reason: This
expositional essay is little more than vague buzzword salad. None of the sources in the article mention the subject and I've been unable to find anything elsewhere that does mention it.
Reason: This buzzword salad has been nothing but a faintly promotional pedagogical essay since it was written. Most of the sources it contains are deadlinks or useless red herrings, and my own searches have come up with nothing. Largely this is because the subject is so vague and obscured by buzzwords that it is legitimately impossible to tell if a possible source is about the same subject. In any case, even if this article was about anything at all (it's not) it would still be necessary to rewrite it from scratch since the current content is irreparably unencyclopedic.
Reason: This now-absorbed company shows no evidence of meeting
WP:NCORP, and the purchasing company Netcall seems not to either. I can't find anything beyond directory listings, so nothing that would satisfy our notability requirements.
Reason: This buzzword-infested article about a non-notable topic is unambiguous advertising, and large parts of it are copied and pasted directly from copyrighted sources such as
this.
Reason: This fog of marketing
buzzwords says nothing more than that it's handy to be able to use software again. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikiplatitude.
Reason: Promotional article about a non-notable and now defunct company, filled with corporate buzzword blather. The company that bought it hasn't got an article so there is nothing to merge or redirect to.
Reason: This is a badly written argumentative essay. Much of the content has been
synthesized from tangentially related sources and the content is mostly an impenetrable fog of corporate buzzwords.
Reason: This charitable organisation does not meet our notability requirements for organisations. The sources in the article are just passing mentions and I have been unable to find anything better in searches.
Reason: This is an overly promotional and buzzword-obfuscated article about an organisation that does not appear to meet our notability requirements. Although I could verify that this exists, all the actually decent sources were about unrelated things involving California.
Reason: Buzzword salad, and unduly self promotional. All my searches for the phrase "four phase model" gave results for unrelated things with the same name.
Reason: Promotional article about a company that does not pass
WP:NCORP. The single source it cites does not mention the subject. My own searches can barely verify that this exists, among a mountain of hits for other companies called Attra, at least two of which have better claims to notability than this one.
Reason: Completely unsourced, and I can find no substantial coverage beyond product home pages and WP mirrors. Tagged as an advertisement for over a decade.
Reason: This initiative doesn't seem notable. THe article is mostly unsourced- two of the three sources are primary and one does not mention the subject.
Reason: Not an encyclopedia topic. Consists of an essay-style exposition and the sources discuss individual instances of someone putting a solar panel somewhere, not a treatment of the topic itself.
Reason: Inherently promotional in tone and doesn't have the reliable independent sources necessary to support an article. Individual university courses typically don't meet notability requirements and this is no exception.
Reason: Article name does not match the subject and I cannot verify which of the two it's actually about or if any of the information in it is correct. Unsourced; previously only referenced to a unreliable source.
Reason: This concept does not appear notable and is written entirely in an
essayish tone. One alleged source does not mention the subject, and the other seems to have always been dead.
Reason: Does not appear to be a notable research initiative. The project's own website is dead, and I can find nothing much else except for WP mirrors.
Reason: Fails
WP:NCORP. The article gives the impression of being properly sourced but, on inspection, the sources are actually about the founder and not the company itself. Indeed,
Jeff Gunther is an almost word-for-word copy of this article. I can find no other sources that would indicate the notability of this minor company.
Reason: Non-notable defunct Linux distro. I can find no sources beyond directory listings of many distributions, certainly nothing substantial and independent.
Reason: This is an infomercial/how-to guide for non-notable software. None of the sources in the article are reliable secondary sources, and I can find nothing better.
Reason: Vague but overly promotional article about an artistic group of some kind. Most of the content is a catalogue of their works, it's entirely unsourced, and I can find nothing that would indicate notability.
Reason: This seems to be a non-notable programming language. The only sources are to the inventor's home age, and I can't find any independent, reliable sources that would indicate notability.
Reason: Blatant advertising brochure sourced only to the company itself. It is full of unsupported assertions and speculations. I can't find anything by searching about this topic except unrelated dog memes.
Reason: Does not appear to be a notable programming language. I can find only a handful of references, and these are articles written by RTML's creators. There is no evidence that the outside world has taken note.
Reason: Poorly sourced, overly detailed listcruft. This would be excessive trivia even if merged into
John Dillinger and the title is not useful as a redirect.
Reason: Does not seem to be notable software. Sourced only to the project's home page and the only thing that comes up in my searches is related to the game of the same name.
Reason: This musical group does not appear to meet
WP:BAND. There are no independent, substantial sources about this band either in the article or that I can find anywhere else.
Reason: Incoherent article about a non-notable topic. The only sources are forums and blogs, and a single sentence name drop in a book. Even if it were possible to determine what this is about, it would need to be
blown up and started from scratch.
Reason: This is the biography of a non-notable musician. The only source in the article is a mere name-drop and I can find nothing better, just hits for different people with the same name.
Reason: I'm not sure this organisation is notable. I can't find much in the way of independent sources, and the current content seems an uncomfortably close paraphrase
Reason: Sourceless article about an unsuccessful band, no credible indication of notability. I also note that the article was written by one of the members.
Reason: This article is 99.9%
original research and the two sources it does have are primary. "Comparison of XYZ" articles usually get deleted if they go to AfD.
Reason: Non-notable list of officials. What little actual text there is, is a word-for-word copy of an ICC press release, which makes it possibly a copyright violation as well.
Reason: Mostly meaningless jargon-laden marketing talk with the lingering odor of promotion. The sources are either dead links, wild goose chases, or serve only to
synthesise the topic from sources not actually about it.
Reason: This buzzword soup is a mish-mash
synthesis of sources that don't mention the phrase "demand modeling". It's also written as a personal essay. I can't find any decent sources on which to base an article about this topic.
Reason: This is just
whole-life cost applied specifically to bridges. The point of this article is unclear, especially since the content is full of buzzwords not specific to bridges anyway.
Reason: Promotional brochure for a company that seems to fail
WP:NCORP. Of the sources, two do not mention the subject, one is a permanent deadlink, and the other is an advertisement.
Reason: This
expositional essay is little more than vague buzzword salad. None of the sources in the article mention the subject and I've been unable to find anything elsewhere that does mention it.
Reason: This buzzword salad has been nothing but a faintly promotional pedagogical essay since it was written. Most of the sources it contains are deadlinks or useless red herrings, and my own searches have come up with nothing. Largely this is because the subject is so vague and obscured by buzzwords that it is legitimately impossible to tell if a possible source is about the same subject. In any case, even if this article was about anything at all (it's not) it would still be necessary to rewrite it from scratch since the current content is irreparably unencyclopedic.
Reason: This now-absorbed company shows no evidence of meeting
WP:NCORP, and the purchasing company Netcall seems not to either. I can't find anything beyond directory listings, so nothing that would satisfy our notability requirements.
Reason: This buzzword-infested article about a non-notable topic is unambiguous advertising, and large parts of it are copied and pasted directly from copyrighted sources such as
this.
Reason: This fog of marketing
buzzwords says nothing more than that it's handy to be able to use software again. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikiplatitude.
Reason: Promotional article about a non-notable and now defunct company, filled with corporate buzzword blather. The company that bought it hasn't got an article so there is nothing to merge or redirect to.
Reason: This is a badly written argumentative essay. Much of the content has been
synthesized from tangentially related sources and the content is mostly an impenetrable fog of corporate buzzwords.
Reason: This charitable organisation does not meet our notability requirements for organisations. The sources in the article are just passing mentions and I have been unable to find anything better in searches.
Reason: This is an overly promotional and buzzword-obfuscated article about an organisation that does not appear to meet our notability requirements. Although I could verify that this exists, all the actually decent sources were about unrelated things involving California.
Reason: Buzzword salad, and unduly self promotional. All my searches for the phrase "four phase model" gave results for unrelated things with the same name.
Reason: Promotional article about a company that does not pass
WP:NCORP. The single source it cites does not mention the subject. My own searches can barely verify that this exists, among a mountain of hits for other companies called Attra, at least two of which have better claims to notability than this one.
Reason: Completely unsourced, and I can find no substantial coverage beyond product home pages and WP mirrors. Tagged as an advertisement for over a decade.
Reason: This initiative doesn't seem notable. THe article is mostly unsourced- two of the three sources are primary and one does not mention the subject.
Reason: Not an encyclopedia topic. Consists of an essay-style exposition and the sources discuss individual instances of someone putting a solar panel somewhere, not a treatment of the topic itself.
Reason: Inherently promotional in tone and doesn't have the reliable independent sources necessary to support an article. Individual university courses typically don't meet notability requirements and this is no exception.