Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PH-DVD (second nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PH-DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No references have shown up other than ones related to the initial press release in 2006. "Polarizonics Corp" has made no SEC filings since 2006, implying that they are no longer active, and I can find no corporate web page. Given all this, it's probably safe to say that this technology is never going to see the light of day - that is, assuming it ever existed in the first place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. My original inkling in the original AfD was that this was a hoax, given the proximity to April Fools' day, and I still believe that to be true. There are still no reliable sources anywhere out there... the only sources cited in the previous AfD (i.e., the basis of the previous keep) were unreliable by Wikipedia standards... that is, bloggish news aggregation type sites (Engadget, etc.) that based their report solely on the press release put forth by the company. There do not appear to be any WP:RS based on investigative journalism by a news source... just rehashes of "Polarizonics says they're creating something called PH-DVD... here's what they say it is" and so on. (It's almost as if I were to put out a press release saying "I'm creating something" and having it picked up... don't give me any ideas! :P) One would think that something so "revolutionary" would have attracted more attention from the technology community. That assumes, however, that this is real. Sure, the company may exist, they may be working on something, etc., but Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and there is nothing else of value out there (reliable sources, for one) on which to base a legitimate article. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that Polarizonics filed a few SEC documents suggests that, if it's a hoax, it's a very thorough one. Still doesn't mean it's a notable hoax (or non-hoax), though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this didn't get transcluded by the creator of the AfD, so here it is... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no real coverage besides a slight blip in a handful of blogs in 2006... oddly just in time for April Fool's Day, not that I'm suggesting anything by that, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I feel this is blatant WP:Hoax. Canyouhearmenow 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Could be a hoax, but either way, it's still far from meeting WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Believe it or not, it has Google hits from outside of Wikipedia, so it's not a hoax (for once), but none of it helps the fact that it still fails WP:CORP. No Google News hits since October 2006, all of them blogs except for a sentence mention in a few British newspapers. But they're just the briefest of brief mentions Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Not to be confused with Ph.D-VD, which doctoral students sometimes get from unsafe research. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While I'm glad this isn't a hoax it still fails WP:CORP and related guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 19:09, 29 February 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.