Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow (data storage)
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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been tagged {{hoax}}, and no verification of the technology has been made. By itself, it is clearly not notable as a hoax (or contentious technological claim, such as Steorn, and would only achieve notability through verification Princess Tiswas (t/c) 10:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ars Technica has also debunked this technology, so it's almost certain a hoax, but it's been all over the news in the past few days, so it's quite notable, even though it's not real. Does Wikipedia allow articles about hoaxes or not? Jayden54 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Hoaxes. Wikipedia allows articles about hoaxes, as long as they are notable hoaxes, documented in multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the hoax/hoaxer. Uncle G 19:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. Jayden54 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Hoaxes. Wikipedia allows articles about hoaxes, as long as they are notable hoaxes, documented in multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the hoax/hoaxer. Uncle G 19:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep, with coverage on techworld[1][2], arstechnica, the Reg, this seems to be verifiable (as a hoax, obviously). Notability is still debatable,this doesn't seem to have attracted much attention outside the tech news websites.Articles in the Deccan Herald, The Hindu and Arab News. Demiurge 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep and suggest revisiting the issue in maybe 6 months or a year and decide then if this was a memorable and notable hoax or just a tiny blip on the midia radar for a couple days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep - It may be useful to keep this simply as a good example of vaporware. Unless a solid analysis of this technology can be verified then it is simply an article about a hoax. Wikipedia does allow articles about hoaxes if they are notable. This "technology" has been covered by several tech media outlets so it can be argued that it is a notable hoax.
- Keep. Covered by multiple publications. Articles about notable hoaxes are allowed as long as they are clearly labelled as such. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - let's keep it for now as it's very notable at the moment, and in six months we can also look at this article again and see if it's still worthy. Jayden54 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In case anyone cares, I've done a little cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It may be a hoax, but it's a notable hoax. PianoSpleen 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, my name is Suhail Rehman and i am a student of the college in which the technology was developed. I have edited the page to include details of the reason why the news reports were blown out of proportion. Also i will search the newspaper archives for citations asap. Please do not delete this page as it is an actual technology in development even if its claims were blown out of proportion.- Suhail Rehman, suhailrehman@gmail.com, 11/30/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.232.117.163 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 November 2006.
- 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.