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. –
Joe (
talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)reply
This does not appear to meet
the General Notability Guideline as all coverage I can find appears to be based on press releases. I've not actually been able to find any evidence that this product ever passed the prototype stage, therefore there can be no sustained coverage of it that isn't based on its announcement at 2006's Consumer Electronics Show.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I saw that paper and immediately discarded it because it was written by Philips staff.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes but it still didn't seem like it was written for a marketing perspective. The paper discloses from the start that the people writing it are part of Philips. The paper also has its own sources at the end as well. –
TheGridExe (
talk) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
My point is that it's not an independent source, so it doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG requirement.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
One can argue that scientific papers have some level of oversight from the editor which makes them sort-of, kind-of independent, even if not fully. But that argument is extremely weak in the case of conference papers (even for reputable and selective conferences, the editor will review the appropriateness of the paper, but not request changes to it, so oversight is minimal).
TigraanClick here to contact me 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
That's understandable then. I will be ok with a delete per nom. –
TheGridExe (
talk) 13:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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 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. –
Joe (
talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)reply
This does not appear to meet
the General Notability Guideline as all coverage I can find appears to be based on press releases. I've not actually been able to find any evidence that this product ever passed the prototype stage, therefore there can be no sustained coverage of it that isn't based on its announcement at 2006's Consumer Electronics Show.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I saw that paper and immediately discarded it because it was written by Philips staff.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes but it still didn't seem like it was written for a marketing perspective. The paper discloses from the start that the people writing it are part of Philips. The paper also has its own sources at the end as well. –
TheGridExe (
talk) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
My point is that it's not an independent source, so it doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG requirement.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
One can argue that scientific papers have some level of oversight from the editor which makes them sort-of, kind-of independent, even if not fully. But that argument is extremely weak in the case of conference papers (even for reputable and selective conferences, the editor will review the appropriateness of the paper, but not request changes to it, so oversight is minimal).
TigraanClick here to contact me 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
That's understandable then. I will be ok with a delete per nom. –
TheGridExe (
talk) 13:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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.