Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhaseSpace

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 Mangojuice^talk 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhaseSpace

Seems like a promotional advertisement to me. PhaseSpace is the name of the company. Article describes the product. Link at bottom of page goes to company website. KarenAnn 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, close to a speedy delete per CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: User cast two votes. —Caesura^(t) 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The way I read this, then, is that this article has three different subjects: 1) a blurb on the physics concept, which is better explained at Phase space anyway; 2) a paragraph on a company that, as far as I can tell, doesn't meet WP:CORP; and 3) a paragraph on an Australian company that doesn't even go by the name PhaseSpace, but has it as part of their company website's URL. Assuming all three were valid encyclopedic topics, each would deserve its own article to be noted on a disambiguation page (which already exists. But really, the only element of the page that apparently is a valid entry on WP already has its own page. I'm not seeing why this one should stay. -- H·G (^words/_works) 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The concept already has an article at Phase space (not worth a redirect, since no one would search for it as PhaseSpace). Both companies appear non-notable ([1] [2]). —Caesura^(t) 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to phase space (the concept). The company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP, and most Ghits for "'phasespace' optical motion" linked to unrelated pages on the concept anyway. Several of these pages seemed to refer to "phasespace" as shorthand for the physics concept, so a redirect isn't unwarranted. -- H·G (^words/_works) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom no opposition ot redirect.--Nick Y. 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete, do not keep as a separate article. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete and in the interesting catch 22 (How many of you know the source without looking it up here?) you can't get listed here unless you are big enough to not need to be listed here. Why does someone need an article on HP? or why would you list the stock market price or value here, when NASDAQ does that nicely. At the risk of inciting a riot, it seems that 1. None of you even know what PhaseSpace, Inc. Does. 2. None of you care. Since we are doing some rather interesting work on VR and the US Government thinks it is worthwhile You are deciding we aren't noteworthy without bothering to look? I took about 2 hours to write an article about impulse and had it deleted by a polite gentleman who didn't understand it (depending on your background impulse is the integral of force or the differential of acceleration, and only one group is represented on wikipedia!) If you understand what I am doing, please argue the merits. If you don't understand then what right do you have to decide? 69.107.12.16 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "You can't get listed here unless you are big enough to not need to be listed here"? You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not in the business of providing free advertising to corporations that need it. We are in the business of providing free information to people who need it. I'm sure your company is doing fascinating, exciting work, but unless it meets our criteria for inclusion, it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. —Caesura^(t) 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment You keep saying WE which seems to exclude ME. I'm busy looking up the rules that apparently are too difficult to just reference with a [[ or something. Tmcsheery 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry, it's been mentioned a couple of times, but here it is again: WP:CORP. Also, WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN may be applicable. And I don't mean to exclude you; I do appreciate the contributions you've made to other Wikipedia articles. —Caesura^(t) 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Thanks for the input and the direction to the RULES WP:CORP. http://www-sigproc.eng.cam.ac.uk/ga/static/9/9e/Poster.pdf , http://www-sigproc.eng.cam.ac.uk/ga/index.php/Vision_and_Motion_Capture, http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/14/embrace-your-youth-fly-games-with-arms-spread/ where Kelley got her Masters thesis, which was published, and Michael Downes at Berkely got his PhD thesis using our technology and listing the merits. Under WP:CORP the criteria is multiple notable publications. Of course once someone discounts the thesis and publications from Cambridge as unnotable, we'll get down to the interpretation phase. Tmcsheery 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No substanc worth keeping.--Runcorn 21:13, 19 July 2006 (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.