Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella.net
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Wizardman 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Umbrella.net
A wireless network connecting umbrellas. Of no practical use. Despite the large number of references, I feel this is non-notable as a work of art. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete No notability. Work of art. There is NO substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See WP:NOT Nk.sheridan Talk 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure about this one. It looks like it has potential. If an editor wants to improve it, I'd want to let it hang around. I'm reserving an opinion one way or the other at the moment, hoping someone will step up and save the article. If it's not a hoax (and I know the concept itself isn't), it would be interesting to see it developed into a full article. Frank | talk 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I don't think this can be improved as I didn't find more reliable sources for it, but there are a few linked in the article (a couple are now dead links). Seems almost but not quite notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources to speak of, not notable in any event. (I originally PRODded this article.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. You speedy'd it - which the author removed (a capital offence). I prodded it! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I knew I did something in an effort to get rid of it. After an hour of new-page patrol, the mind gets a little fuzzy. Do I get extra points for warning the author, who went back and removed the AfD notice? :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. You speedy'd it - which the author removed (a capital offence). I prodded it! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- keep the work is well known in net.art circles, it is featured in Mark Tribe's book on new media art and rhizome.org rubaiyat —Preceding comment was added at 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and be warned that this article appears to be a part of a class assignment to create and expand new media articles. If a bunch of new, apparently SPA editors weigh in in the article's defense, that might be why. -- Vary | Talk 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Move/merge. The work was awarded a prize by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [1]. Artworks that win prizes don't usually have their own articles, without sufficient third party coverage, but prize-winning artists do. A move to Brucker-Cohen and Moriwaki or Jonah Brucker-Cohen (the more significant of the two), would make sense. Notability would still be an issue, but I think it would just about scrape through.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:11, 9 May 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.
