Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veqtor

Add links
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 of the debate was delete. kingboyk 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veqtor

[edit]

This was speedied under another title, prodded, and the proposed deletion tag removed by the creator with discussion (see talk page). He is making a good faith effort to help here (removing external links for example), and I appreciate that... but I hope he can understand the objections by at least 3 editors to his article. It seems to exist solely to promote Veqtor, which is a problem, since that's not what WP is for. Also, there's no evidence provided that the company in any of its incarnations meets WP:CORP. W.marsh 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This definition does meet the definition of WP:CORP and it is not "Spam" (as asserted by User JzG). Quoting from wikipedias own articles the definition of Spam (electronic) is unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages, such as e-mail spam, unsolicited emails with advertisements..)
  • See WP:SPAM for Wikipedia's definition of Spam.
VEQTOR has been described and specifically mentioned in various non-trivial publications, including books and magazine articles and television shows, for example: ISBN 88-85860-23-0 Author Danilo Tosetto, published by Facto Edizioni of Italy--82.68.21.14 17:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE This item has only been reposted as it was set for rapid deletion and I was away so I did not have the five day grace period. The reason for duplication under VEQTOR is that wikipedia is a case sensative search engine. This listing does meet WP:CORP even if Arundhati_bakshi does not like the listing.--VEQTOR 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, thinly disguised. Bucketsofg 18:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no coverage in Lexis/Nexis European or American news; one peripheral mention in an article about a Laser Tag arena. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP I believe. Thatcher131 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the AfD for VEQTOR

[edit]

Something funny going on, merging them...

VEQTOR
[edit]

fails WP:CORP, has been reposted and is duplicated on Veqtor (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 17:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definition DOES meet the definition of WP:CORP as VEQTOR has been described and specifically mentioned in various non-trivial publications, including books and magazine articles and television shows, for example: ISBN 88-85860-23-0 Author Danilo Tosetto, published by Facto Edizioni of Italy--82.68.21.14 17:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)--82.68.21.14 17:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)--VEQTOR 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Global Books in Print has no listing for author: Danilo Tosetto or ISBN:88-85860-23-0. Thatcher131 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its Okay This piece is not an advertisement as it has no external links. It presents facts about a subject and relevant internal links to related subjects of interest to some readers to wikipedia. Just because Bucketsofg has no interest in the subject does not make it unworthy. Further Bucketsofg has not sited any solid reason for removal or suggested any changes to make this article acceptable. Therefore his comments should be summarily rejected.--Jplache 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Others can make up their own mind on the issue at hand: it's not all that important to me. I'm struck, Jplache, that you've only ever submitted two edits, one here and one to the deletion thread on [Veqtor]. I assume that you're acting in good faith. But in case you don't know the rules, WP does not allow voting under different aliases (WP:SOCK) and there is a process for checking. Bucketsofg 19:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the subject has been covered by third-party sources, the article needs to mention this. NickelShoe 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all --Khoikhoi 08:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE ISBN 8885860044 does exist. I apologize for the misleading information above. However, it was published in 1987, and is only held by 3 libraries. It is in Italian, and the title is Progettare un parco : alcune idee per un parco ricreativo-tematico "made in Italy" . Its subject category is Amusement parks -- Italy -- Designs and plans. I don't know if this affects notability or verifiability. Curiously, the book's publisher has no other listings in Worldcat, Firstsearch or Books in Print. Lexis/Nexis has a single mention as a maker of LaserTag equipment in an article about a new LaserTag arena in Louisiana. Factiva finds that VEQTOR exhibited at the 2003 IAAPA trade show. ProQuest finds a 1996 article about a LaserTag installation in Iceland, and a 1998 press release about a LaserTag facility in New Delhi. (Those by the way are the only hits in Factiva and Proquest, not a selected subset.) Various other databases find nothing. I change my vote from delete to No vote. It's a real company but darned hard to find any verifable information on it. Thatcher131 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But shouldn't the very fact that it is hard to find an article on it be an index of non-notability? Bucketsofg 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I didn't vote keep. One problem is that the online Global Books in Print obviously doesn't go back far enough in its out-of-print listings. Maybe other searches suffer similarly; if the company was bigger in the 80's and early 90's there might not be a lot in online sources. Certainly the lack of current information could mean they are no longer notable, and certainly hampers verifiability. Having made the mistake about the existence of the book, I wanted to be extra careful and make sure I didn't miss anything else, so I went farther in depth than I have before.Thatcher131 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he is working on a major revision. Although there may be some doubt if it will meet WP:CORP, he is usiong references and the article now looks like an article instead of an advert. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mike, what elements of the article would you like rewritten? Do you have any other known uses of VEQTOR as a definition of clarification? Most users of wikipeida understand that wikipedia is a compendium of facts and descriptions related to words and concepts, spanning millions of subjects, old new and even theoretical speculation - AND no matter how obscure! What FACTS within this article need to be changed, enhanced, clarified? What items contained within this article are 'SPAM'? Over time I guess that many people will seek to add accurate modifications to this article - interested parties describe there experiences and associations with the subjects this article contains. Mike not all subjects on wikipedia are of interest to you (nor to me) but that does not mean that they are not of interest to others. I hope all voters on this subject will present POSITIVE criticism like Bucketsofg has demonstrated - wikipedians must use an honorable approach suggesting positive actions, rather than unsupported bias. --VEQTOR 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)----[reply]
Turn it into an article instyead of an advertisement. Look at the Winn Dixie article to get some ideas. Theorectical speculation does not belong at Wikipedia. You need to read WP:NOT, WP:WINAD, WP:SPAM and WP:NOR to see why people object to this. What you have looks like an advertisement of a non notable company that contains almost no information. After reading your article I am still not sure what VEQTORIAN is. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete this article was interesting as I have an interest in the health and wellness business and it's interesting to see how the market is developing.--Mudie 13:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on finding this AfD with your very first edit. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user to wikipedia, and I found this article interesting. Why is it marked for deletion? I think it should be kept. Richard 3-21-2006 11:20 a.m.

Posted by IP 66.167.119.42. Another user who has never posted to wikipedia before, must be a coincidence. --OscarTheCattalk 21:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So 'OscartheCat', I believe wikipedia is to contain facts not assumptions or suppositions. Both of your comments are just that - factless. I am the author of this article and you have given me no guide as to what you want to see added or deleted to improve this article. Without your positive input the goal of wikipedia is dead. YES, I have e-mailed a few collegues around the world and introduced them to wikipedia - some have take the time to try and learn to use wikipedia and I commend them. The fact is that most people of the world and casual internet users do NOT use, or even know about, wikipedia. The fact is I am not faking the vote.--VEQTOR 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:VAIN? Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete this page........I need the info on this page!!! This is the funniest game ever made,you laugh constantly AND get a workout.....brilliant. regards from wolfman

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veqtor&oldid=1265595558"