Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digiclone

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--JForget 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digiclone

Digiclone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article seems to be about a currently non-existent technology; the article has no significant Google hits and is poorly cited as well. Bumm13 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notble neogolism. I may be way wrong here, but my understanding of the topic, but this is about computer generated imaging, not cloning per se.--Gavin Collins 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article does seem to be about the creation of photo-realistic CGI animations of people indistinguishable from flesh and blood people rather than actual cloning, but a quick search of google suggests 'Digiclone' isn't a term that is in common, or even uncommon, use. Parts of the article seem to read more like an opinion piece anyway.Alberon 11:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as general goofiness. I admit it actually made me laugh out loud: "Main Applications: Destroying people who are a hinderance to your interests". I can't help imagine Dr. Evil with a copy of Poser. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No proof of the existence of the technology, or any reason for it being notable is included in the article. --Aqwis 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Doesn't seem to be well known. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Shift-Delete, click "Yes" when prompted The one reliable source quoted does not mention the word. I'm guessing this is a WP:HOAX, perhaps created by the ebay user of the same name, in an attempt to gain recognition. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gavin Collins and Andrew Lenahan Magus05 ^(talk) 08:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - incoherent neologism as pointed out by Gavin Collins and User:Alberon. --Juxo 19:02, 31 October 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.