User:Jnothman/temp

< December 27	December 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

fooey barry

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 Speedy Keep: obvious case of misinterpretation of WP:NOTE and/or a case of WP:POINT. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

300-page iPhone bill

Strong Delete This is an article about an unimportant subject. The Talking Mac (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close - The subject more than meets the requirements of WP:N--"unimportant" is a subjective judgment, and not sufficient grounds for deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
strong delete not notableSpartansuit (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are using a different definition of notable than the one used on Wikipedia. From WP:N:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

* "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.…

-- Dhaluza (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Special:Contributions/Spartansuit User's only other contributions have been vandalism. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Dhaluza (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. One, two, and now three nominations to delete, and yet the article remains well-referenced, well-written, and even - dare we say - substantially notable. While no doubt embarrassing to Apple and AT&T, this video (and its creator, and the issue it focuses upon) has received coverage on or in ABC News, PC World and other reliable sources. The article seems rather massive upon first glance, but I believe a lot of that bulk is an unfortunate necessity considering the fanatical POV-pushers involved in most "iArticles". While the title is somewhat lacking, this is the fault of the video's creator, not the article's. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it turns out this is a WP:POINT nomination. Wonderful! --Badger Drink (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Has consensus really changed that much since last nom one month ago? Whether important or not is not at issue, it is notable. I hope this is not a case of WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor). DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Close. Seems to be a WP:POINT nom per DoubleBlue. --Smashville^BONK! 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "unimportant"? The article seems to be exceedingly well-referenced and meets the notability requirements; what policy or guideline does WP:UNIMPORTANT fall under? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:40, 29 December 2007 (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.

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 both. Secret ^account 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aldebaran Robotics

Contested CSD with tenuous notability claims. Keilana_(recall) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The following article is being bundled as it relates to a project-in-progress by Aldebaran Robotics, included per discussion below

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 07:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Undecided. A quick Google search (for "Aldebaran Robotics") seems to indicate that plenty of sources can be found, but I am unsure of how reliable they are, and therefore whether it passes WP:N's criteria for presumed notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I suggest also including NAO (Aldebaran Robotics) in this nomination. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lifebaka for including this article alongside this in the nomination. — E ^talk 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment on 2nd article nom: ~~I disagree with bundling~~ NAO (Aldebaran Robotics) with Aldebaran Robotics. There are very few humanoid robot projects that have gotten past the design stage. It is not unreasonable to consider the fruits of a company's labors to be notable even if the company itself is not in such a case. An analogous case would be a chemical compound that eventually became a drug, but it originated at a now defunct company which went out of business after licensing the compound to another company which completed development of the therapeutic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on my comment: it does appear that the NAO remains in the design phase - my apologies. For a design-phase project, this type of bundling is quite ok. I will add the AFD template to the article momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does not establish notability and fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. It does not fail WP:CORP, as there seem to be many 3rd party articles. Also, according to this, as well as the article, the NAO robot has been chosen to replace AIBO in the RoboCup competition, whcih seems pretty notable to me. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Those links you have provided appear to be to blog entries, which are generally not considered reliable sources. However, the author of two is 'Donald Melanson' who is a freelance journalist ... but I wouldn't consider him to be at the top of his trade, so to speak, based on his LinkedIn profile if the two are one and the same people. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stormie (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. Google and the company website provide multiple secondary sources. True, they tend to be news or blog reports, but as blogs go, they are serious blogs, by reputable contributors, as seems common in such industries. Seems a sufficient demonstration of notability for a toy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- If, as per Pavel & Evan below, all the sources relate to an “initial marketing campaign”, and as I can’t find actual sales data or non-insider consumer reviews, for example, then it is not sufficiently notable, and, as per WP:N, should be merged (preferably) or deleted (if there is no suitable target). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment on Aibo replacement by Nao: The transition from Aibo to Nao is announced here (standard platform site linked to the official robocup site - refer to the left menu, "RoboCupSoccer" part) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.84.92 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete both. Initial marketing campaign does not make a company notable. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't consider them being endorsed by a notable third party (RoboCup, in this case) to be an "initial marketing campaign." --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete both. Fails WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS. In the future this might be a notable company and product but right now it is simply not cutting it. Recreation if the above points is provide should be acceptable. 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
Keep. The RoboCup selection adds significant notoriety. Also, the company just secured €5 mil in funding for development of the NAO and rollout on 2008. http://www.silicon.fr/fr/news/2008/01/11/france___le_robot_nao_touche_le_jackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.61.89 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2008 (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.

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 Redirect to Pokemon Trading Card Game. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy card

This article is redundant with the article on the Pokemon Trading Card Game and this article demonstrates no notability of its own through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If this article contains no more information than Pokemon Trading Card Game then redirect it. alex.muller (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care what's done to it. I put it together when there was very little information about the TCG on Wikipedia, and now that there's a lot more (and Bulbapedia becoming a lot more comprehensive), I'm fine with its deletion. Ron Stoppable (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Pokemon_Trading_Card_Game#Card_types. Hey Judgesurreal777, I think you should consider Pokémon card and Trainer Card for this Afd as well (If you chose to include them, consider my vote as redirect all). The Bulbapedia version of these articles are more in-depth and in my opinion would satisfy the most curious of visitors.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete overly generic name 70.55.91.243 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect. A non-notable part of a bvery notable card game. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Pokemon Trading Card Game, because one card does not need an entire article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺)} 05:08, 3 January 2008 (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.