Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Optical pointer extension


 * 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  04:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hyper Optical pointer extension

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

First of all, is this a G4 speedy? It was already on my watch list, which suggests that it has been deleted previously.

As to the current article, then it's a vast, vague, unreferenced woffle about broadly unrelated optics topics, with a tiny veneer of self-promotion for a not evidently notable core topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy. The article log says:
 * 00:07, 3 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Hyper Optical pointer extension (Expired PROD, concern was: The author says (on his user page) that this is his own project. There are no secondary sources, no chance to satisfy WP:NOTE.) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. An admin has to look into this. The current user was created later, in February. Needs check who was the creator of PRODded article and whether his user page indeed says that it is OR. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think G4 speedy is only for articles that have been deleted by a previous AfD, not for articles such as this one whose only previous deletion was through a prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I remember a previous discussion about HOPE; discussion was probably triggered by this edit. HOPE had an issue with sources, and the author provided a Palestinian source about an award for HOPE. IIRC, User:Dicklyon characterized HOPE as a solid project but lacking notice. Note User:MotazSabri states he's working on "software that is used to manage patients records in hospitals"; compare to User:TivaSerano who is working on "software that is used to manage records in hospitals". Both users are interested in AI and games. Glrx (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. TivaSerano explains at Talk:Hyper Optical pointer extension that the state change is the addition of 3 references. Those references are Sabri's patent, a related patent certificate, and an acceptance notification for a yet-unpublished paper. These documents neither independent nor secondary sources. Even if the unpublished acceptance notice is taken as a good source, there are not multiple reliable sources here. The long list of references at the end of the article are not about HOPE; they are about techniques that HOPE (and other systems) use. The article does not meet WP:N. Glrx (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they're even patent certificates, any more than those "Buy yourself a PhD" spam emails are a genuine doctorate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Googling "International Institute of Modern Research" only turns up this article. There's a patent number in the pix, but no jurisdiction indicated; US patent 7488357 is about diesel fuel.
 * Another article with the same content, Hyperactive optical pointer extension, was created 21:39 25 April 2012 -- 90 minutes after this article was tagged for AfD.
 * Glrx (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tagged Hyperactive optical pointer extension as CSD/A10.
 * I've requested deletion of the three images on Commons.
 * Glrx (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two of the images are already back on WP as fair use. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more contorted than that. I requested deletion of the images on Commons; those requests will probably run for a week. Meanwhile, it looks like the first two images were uploaded to en.WP by User:MotazSabri under slightly different names. Glrx (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research / spam. Certainly totally unsuitable. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (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.