Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assertive Display

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. bd2412 T 22:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assertive Display

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

Declined prod. Promotional for a feature of ARM displays. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's some additional coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4]. This does not strike me as obviously promotional but first step is to tag or try and improve the article, not delete. Removing promotional material from such a stubby article should not be difficult. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All those articles are sourced to Apical and Qualcomm and are basically PR. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: what are the problems with the coverage cited in the article and the additional sources I reference above? ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, all those articles are sourced to Apical and Qualcomm and are basically PR. By these I mean none of the sources pass WP:SPIP as they don't appear to be sufficiently independent, but just regurgitated press releases.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example the second link you posted androidheadlines.com gives the source as this Apical page where much of the content has been directly copied from.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed/forgot about your earlier comment. I respect and appreciate your assessment though I still believe there is enough qualifying WP:SECONDARY coverage to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- borders on G11 with promo content and non independent sources. Lacks SIGCOV in 3rd party sources; what comes up is PR driven or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2017 (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.