Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower topology


 * 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. MuZemike 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Flower topology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Obvious hoax. Contested PROD. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 16:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note There was a PROD on this article (with the reason An obvious hoax - there 'is' a flower typology, but not in the 1990s - the patent was only filed a couple of years ago - and published last year - and the details are nothing like this) and I supported it with a PROD2 stating An obvious hoax - there 'is' a flower typology, but not in the 1990s - the patent was only filed a couple of years ago - and published last year - and the details are nothing like this --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Google searches on the string "Flower topology" netmax has 1 hit for Search (and that was this article), and 0 hits on News Search, News Archive Search, Scholar Search and Books Search. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Google searches on the string "Flower topology" has 122 hits on Google Web Search (all of which seem to be connected with this patent in 2006). There are 0 hits on Google News and Google News Archives; 0 hits on Google Books although there are hits for the words individually; and 13 hits on Google Scholar, although these all appear to be connected to the patent mentioned above - which has nothing to do with NetMax, which this article claims. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It does not surprise me if two different things (what this article describes in the 1990s, and what was patented in 2006) have the same name and are equally non notable. This sentence in the article tells me everything necessary to know: "The topology was never released to the general public however NetMax Studios shared the information between a select few smaller companies." Miami33139 (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is obviously a hoax article. It starts off sounding serious, but everything below the ToC is patent nonsense.  Article creator Scc-screen (contribs) is also a SPA for this article. Grey Wyvern ⚒   —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (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.