Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBeam

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBeam

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom fails WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A product; this is mainly promotional. All of the references are of a promotional nature. I couldn't find any third-party sources that appear neutral. LaMona (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be neutral, just independent. An advert is unacceptable, but a favourable review is (prima facie) okay. James500 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a reply to the !vote, not the response. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per the policy WP:V, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks including detailed articles in InfoWorld, Computerworld and PC Mag, and a headed section in the book "Using C&IT to Support Teaching" (Routledge). James500 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, and per the request of RoySmith, a search for ebeam + whiteboard produces the four results I mentioned immediately and plenty of others. Links for those four sources are: [1] (continues on page 66) [2] [3] [4]. James500 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: We need some comments on the sources found by James500

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:44, 8 September 2014 (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.