Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IP reader

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP reader

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Page does not meet notability guidelines, and is overwhelmingly written like an advertisement. Teb (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so it's a card reader. We already have an article for that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find this article as an ad for HID and think it was a POV-pushing for the creation of a new standard (see "HID OPIN API" and "if open communication standards existed").While as a professional of the domain I'd like a standard, and as a wikipedia user I like to include subject and not delete them, I think this is too much of a niche and has no standing in a general view. This could be a paragraph in card reader, or access control, but not a full article. So, to the bin it should go. --Zeugma fr (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional in tone and not worth salvaging - The kernel of this article was created in 2008 by Andriusval, whose editing seemed to have the aim of creating a network of content promoting HID Global. Most of the content is not really encyclopedic in tone and the article lacks adequate sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2022 (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.