Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 29

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 29 November 2013 (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Surveillance Camera Man. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:36, 29 November 2013 by Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs) (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Surveillance Camera Man. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 10 (Fri) January 9 (Thu) January 8 (Wed) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 28 November	30 November >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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. Sandstein 10:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Surveillance Camera Man

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, I'm not confident this man passes the notability guideline. He does have two articles to his credit and he is a youtube personality but I'm not convinced this is enough to meet substantial coverage and I'm opening a discussion regarding it. from one of the two sources itself "Also, there’s no way to identify this nameless filmmaker to file a complaint. " Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable local creep (or group of creeps). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete as above. A line or two under surveillance or surveillance camera sems appropriate, not an entire WP entry. -SetagayaJ (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I would actually think he shouldn't be mentioned there; I'm not sure SCM is a significant enough aspect of that subject to warrant mention. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep – There's coverage in a few reliable sources, including plenty of verifiable information to write about the subject. Obviously I think there's enough for inclusion per WP:GNG or I wouldn't have written the article, but as a good deletionist myself, I can see both sides of the question. However, his anonymity is of course totally irrelevant; I'm not sure what Hell in a Bucket's point was in noting that. It shouldn't be considered here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP concerns mostly is what I was inferring and the fact when I think about it how can you be notable when no one knows who you are? Isn't it also possible this is more then one person? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

how can you be notable when no one knows who you are?—I don't understand this question. Banksy is an example of a notable anonymous subject, if that helps you. What does anonymity have to do with notability? Wrt BLP, can you please elaborate? What is your concern? ErikHaugen (talk |

contribs) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We are writing about a survelliance camera man that may or my not be one person. How can we accurately write an article about a person in that situation? it may just end up like a tabloid article. I'm sorry I am on edge with this article as to keeping or deleting because it is right on the thresh-hold of keeping too. I believe deletionist's (I am one too) are very good at that sort of brinksmanship but it just barely falls outside my ideas of a keepable article at this point. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Banksy could be multiple people, too! This question simply has nothing to do with whether to delete the article or not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete This is actually misclassified as a biography about a person, it's really about a YouTube video series. Needs more than a couple local sources, and something concerning greater social significance of the videos, that sets it apart from every other youtube video series. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I think these articles speak to these concerns somewhat (although I don't think GNG sets the wall above "local sources"):
- A posting in the Internet Monitor (from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society) about public surveillance: “Surveillance Camera Man” Draws Ire, Provokes Questions About Recording in Public
- An article by Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing: Surveillance Camera Man wants to know why we accept CCTVs but not a creepy guy with a camcorder
There are many others of this nature, these are the most "heavyweight" that I've found so far. This isn't the most significant subject on the controversy presented by mass surveillance by a long shot, but I think I've demonstrated here that it has gained enough notoriety to warrant inclusion as a standalone article, and certainly that it has received plenty of non-local attention. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've added a couple more sources to the article and noted the Cory Doctorow post here, all of which I think help establish this subject's notability. I'd appreciate it if those who expressed a "delete" opinion based on notability grounds would indicate whether or not these new sources change the picture at all. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Harvard source is a blog, and with blogs we also look at who wrote it, and in this case it was written by a summer intern, so I discounted it as a reliable source (no disrespect to summer interns). Cory Doctorow is a little better but BoingBoing is so prolific on every piece of internet trivia it's hard to see it as very reliable indicator of notability, BB borders on the internet geek version of a tabloid. Maybe others will disagree but I didn't give it much weight. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those aren't particularly "reliable" as in "WP:RS", but I think they demonstrate some "social significance of the videos". There's also a Yahoo News article about it, which is RS and addresses your other point about "more than a couple local sources" (not that GNG has anything to do with local vs. non-local). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete At first, I thought that there was just enough coverage of this topic to put it on the keep/delete borderline, but looking more carefully at the sources I decided "no, it is well to the delete side of the border". Yes, there is some coverage of him, but not a lot, and most of it is in sources that are unreliable, parochial, or in other ways not significant. The Yahoo News item is the nearest there is to a significant source, but that alone falls well below the level needed to indicate notability. We have someone who has been doing rather trivial things which have received a few mentions in a few places, most of which are not reliable sources, and that's all. (When even the one and only person arguing to keep (the author of the article) admits Yeah, those aren't particularly "reliable" as in "WP:RS", it is clear that the "keep" campaign is on weak ground.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, the not "particularly 'reliable'" ones I was talking about are the blog entries. I think the rest are, and I don't think there's much question about that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (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.

The result was keep. Ged UK 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Campaign for Social Science

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional article on organization with entirely promotional purpose; distinguished board, but no evidence of actual activity DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep and improve, articles published by the UK press suggest it is a notable and active organization. See also:

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the Campaign for Social Science’s view. We note there are four reasons for page deletions, as given in Misplaced Pages’s guidelines: failure to keep to a ‘neutral point of view’, to ‘verifiability’, to the ‘no original research’ rule or to the copyright requirement. The first is dealt with usually by editing only, rather than deleting a page, the guidelines say. The last does not seem to be an issue here.

As regards ‘verifiability’ and ‘no original research’, the page has 10 references (one added since the Deletion note was published). Four of these are to national UK media such as The Guardian, three to the UK’s main magazine for the higher education sector, one to a prominent social science forum, one to an academic publisher, and one to a YouTube video. These are the sources for information about the Campaign’s lobbying, events, media coverage and publications. Further links to media articles about the Campaign can be seen on the News section of the Campaign’s website.

On the discussion site it is said that the Campaign has an entirely promotional purpose. In the sense that it promotes and campaigns for the social sciences in the UK, this is true and is the main purpose of the Campaign. But many other Misplaced Pages pages feature organisations with a promotional/campaigning function as their main objective, so this does not seem to be a reason for deletion.

On the discussion site it is said that the page itself is entirely promotional. Everything on the page is correct and it is open to all to edit this with more information.

The page has evidence of the Campaign’s activity - it has: given its views to a House of Commons Committee; organised 19 roadshows; run a conference on riots in England; launched the latest in its series of booklets on social science research (in November 2013, with speakers including Professor Lord Richard Layard and the Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham); and released a report on graduate employment (in October 2013). These are valid campaigning activities. (The Business Secretary Vince Cable and the Higher Education Minister David Willetts have also spoken at Campaign events which are not mentioned on the Wiki page).

The Campaign is supported by 78 universities, learned societies and publishers, and it was set up by the Academy of Social Sciences, the representative body for social science organisations in the UK. The Campaign’s Board is headed by Professor James Wilsdon, Professor of Science and Democracy, University of Sussex, whose deputy is Professor Michael Harloe, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salford.

We suggest the page does not contravene the Misplaced Pages guidelines such that it needs to be deleted. Should there be any part of it that does not meet the guidelines, we suggest that this part be removed rather than the whole page, a procedure recommended under the guidelines. We would be happy to provide more information, links and testimonials should you wish this. Apologies for such a lengthy reply. Camsocsci (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep an organization with that number of professors on its board (UK usage of professor) is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris Achilleos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sci-fi illustrator who has had some success but by no means enough notice to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Largely unverifiable too. Sionk (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is the guy who produced the cover art for about thirty (out of 150+) Target novelisations of Doctor Who, including the earliest twelve of these (published 1973-75). Don't know what you mean by "unverifiable" - his signature (usually as "-ACHILLEOS-") appears in the artwork, sometimes disguised as part of the design; but you can see it in e.g. File:Doctor Who and the Dæmons.jpg (published 1974), in the white area bottom centre, curving round the orange area to the right of the green cloud. Later he adopted a simple letter A in a circle, as seen in the lower left corner of File:Doctor Who and the Ark in Space.jpg (published 1977). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Illustrators illustrate things as part of their job. That's not proof of notability in itself. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep for now. He's often referred to by other professionals in the field and is very well known in the field of fantasy and to a lesser extent, science fiction art. For an artist in this line of work, he is also well published, with a number of collections over the years. The challenge for me is the lack of secondary sources in the article as it stands, and it might need a bit of digging in the specialist press to provide those sorts of references. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep (for now). The lack of secondary sources is disappointing, especially considering that this credits the subject as a "world-renowned illustrator" whose career has "spanned over three decades", and praises his work as "spectacular". Such claims lead me to doubt that the subject is hopelessly non-notable. It's clear, however, that the article in its current state requires a great deal of work. Super Mario Man 22:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Geoff Nutkins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an aviation illustrator but despite some of the claims in the article I can't find anything at all about him anywhere online (discounting his website and his museum website) let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. The claim of raising money for charity is very worthy, but he produced over 6000 of these prints, so £100,000 doesn't indicate high value art. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete This source says "one of Britain’s top aviation artists Geoff Nutkins".. but then goes on to promote him in a way that reads like a press release. Not sure what guardian-series.co.uk is and found very little else (the NewsShopper sources are not independent). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete I do believe he's very talented, but, I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources. SarahStierch (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to List of Family Guy characters. Ged UK 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Vinny Griffin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't really know a whole lot about the character of Vinny Griffin (or is it Vinnie?) at this point in time, except that he's going to be a recurring character for at least the next few episodes. I suggest we delete the page and redirect to List of Family Guy characters at least until his character becomes more developed, or if having a separate page for him is even necessary. Even Joe Swanson and Carter Pewterschmidt don't have separate pages. Jgera5 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete This seems a bit premature. He's appeared in one episode. I'm not sure he passes the WP:NOTABILITY test yet. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Right now, Vinny is the replacement pet on the show. He currently occupies a central role left vacant by a recently deceased character on the show. Therefore, his character should have a page. Silver Buizel (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaning toward Delete : not a significant character (yet?). Definitely does not have much notability other than being new to the show. Support a redirect until such time as he becomes notable enough to warrant his own article. DP76764 (Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Or redirect to Family Guy's main article. I don't think Vinny needs a separate article. TJD2 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. For the reasons outlined above, really. Until Vinny has been in more than a few episodes and proves to be a significant character, he should just have a bio on the List of Family Guy characters page, especially since there are indications that his character may not be a permanent fixture on the show. NotGaryStu (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge: Wait until more about Vinny is known, then write an article for him. He should only have an article if he is a prominent character like the rest of the Griffin family, Cleveland, or Quagmire. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The creators of the show have indicated that Brian is gone and Vinnie is the replacement; while it is possible that this is a publicity stunt, ostensibly there is no greater authority on the character than the writers. Saying that we should "wait and see" is like suggesting that - upon the release of say, American dad - we waited to see what happened to Roger before we made an article. There's always uncertainty, but in cases like this we should trust word of God (we can always move it later). Liempt (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Change my vote to Merge I never even thought about a redirect. Good idea. As far him replacing a central character on the show -- yes he has. But that doesn't make the new character a central character. How do we know how he's going to feature in future episodes? What if he's killed off next Sunday? The point is, he has not yet met the criteria for notability. By this logic, then Chris' Evil Monkey should have his own page since an entire episode was written with him as the central character. I'm not against Vinny getting a page in the future, but let him "earn" it, for lack of a better cliche. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Family Guy characters. It is much too soon to provide this subject with its own article, but it also makes little sense to delete the article since the character exists and is slated to play a part in the Family Guy series. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep Vinny regardless of the length he will be on Family Guy should have his own page. He is the resulting controversy of Brian's death. --Matt723star (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Change Or it could be changed to an article just about Brian's death. His death is causing significant coverage as it's one of the first shocking deaths of its era. --Matt723star (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete or merge/redirect to character list There's no inherent notability for "pet in family guy", so even if he's replacing the old dog this is still subject to our usual standards for notability of fictional characters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge to character list Vinny, and his voice actor, are listed as guest stars, so until there's indication this is a permanent character, a separate article is unnecessary. GSK ✉ ✓ 17:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect / Merge: ~~I don't support the merging or changing at all (in which it should be removed from the characters article also).~~ Like Kjscotte34 said, the character has only been in one episode, in which we don't know if the character will be in the show permanently, or longer to be exacted. So right now, the character is not that important (likable) to rumors, fan base, nor the show that can lead up to create an article about it. I would recommend redirecting it to the episode where was first introduced, or to merge the info of the character to the characters article under the section recurring characters, because of right now, creating an article about the character is just too fast, especially when fans of Family Guy are telling producers, especially Seth to get rid of Vinny (or whatever it's name is), and to bring back Brian, in which I fully support that. Blurred Lines 19:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete He's not notable and fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 29. —cyberbot I _Online 01:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep-Vinny is a major character in the series now, even though he only appeared in half an episode. Joe needs a page too! Just 'cause he appeared in 1 episode doesn't mean he isn't a main character already! 76.220.66.126 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete No prejudice to later re-creation, but we don't know if this character will appear beyond a set amount of episodes. For now, they've barely appeared in part of an episode in a long series. We're under no WP:DEADLINE and we can wait for more sources to develop. Nate • (chatter) 04:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Joe definitely needs an article of his own, but it is too soon to have one for Vinny. As I mentioned above, we should wait until more is known about him before making him an article. One episode appearance by itself does not make a character notable enough to have an article. Until then, it should be redirected to the List of Family Guy characters page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Family Guy Characters with absolutely no prejudice of recreating the page later (say, at the end of the season) depending on Vinny's role in the show. While I expect he will replace Brian as a main character in the series, Misplaced Pages is not the place for speculation. Frank Anchor 21:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, but a one time appearance (as of now) doesn't warrant a full article. Copy the current text to List of Family Guy Characters. If, at a later time, it is shown this is anything other than a few guest appearances (after all, Tony Sirico isn't an easy get) it can be restored. --Boston Burkenation (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. At the moment, Vinny has only appeared in one episode and his voice actor (Tony Sirico) has only signed with the show, for six episodes. Until Vinny has appeared in over ten episodes, or until the producers make a clear confirmation regarding his future on the show, this article should be deleted. For instance, Adam West and Jillian (Family Guy characters) have appeared in more episodes and are definitely recurring, should they get their own pages?? Even Joe Swanson doesn't have his own page!! Vinny, at this moment in time, is only a recurring, support character. It hasn't been confirmed that he is a permanent replacement to Brian! Reduolf13 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I am leaning towards delete/redirect for Vinny Griffin Reduolf13, Mayor West does have his own page, as does Herbert. That's not to say that should be a precedent, but Mayor West does have his own page. Jgera5 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge to the List of Family Guy Characters, however trim all the unsourced content currently in the article, and the content related to the Brian controversy, that can be found in the Brian Griffin article. At this point we have no idea how significant this character will be. The mentioned ones that do have articles, they are much more significant and have been covered significantly in reliable sources. STATic message me! 22:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete for now, per Notability. Compact current text and redirect to List of Family Guy Characters. Can restore at later time per what the show does with the character. AlaskaDave (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It appears that Vinny is a new member of the Griffin family, replacing Brian. Therefore it is expected that he will have a starring role, particularly I expect in upcoming episodes to reveal more about his life and to normalise the new role. To delete the article and then to bring it back later would be foolish in my opinion. DaveMReilly talk 14:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If or when that happens, we can discuss it then. No point creating pages based solely on peoples expectations or guesses at this point. AlaskaDave (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge per StaticVapor. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Photon soup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An apparently non-notable computing project that I lack the technical knowledge to describe.

I could not find any significant coverage of this project. The only sources that are not Misplaced Pages mirrors are (as far as I can tell): (a Slashdot post), (an entry (?) at distributedcomputing.info, citing the previous post and the project's homepage) and the project's homepage, http://www.cpjava.net/photonproj.html (now a dead link, archived at the Wayback Machine). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete if possible, no specific claims of notability, way to short, lack of sources, especially lack of coverage... Alex 00:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment Photon tracing appears to be directly related to this article (and includes the approximate contents of the Photon soup article in one of its paragraphs). I'd suggest it as a redirect target although I note it appears to suffer from identical problems to this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you mean—a definite merge, if kept, I'd say. Though perhaps I should bundle Photon tracing into this AfD? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  - I've proposed that additional article as well. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Photon tracing. Alex 02:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete might have been a legitimate project, but effectively not notable after the article created in 2004. W Nowicki (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete No apparent sourcing to establish notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)