Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PowerVR products

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of PowerVR products

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

~~Delete~~ company already has an article with all the same information, albeit in less detail. this product list has been copied and pasted to this website as well, which is even using the same image hosted on wikimedia servers (click the image on enotes.com and it takes you to the wiki file); seems someone is on a promotional bender. the text from the main article about the company also can be found on that website. not sure if this is a copy vio as it may be the user who posted that info there also made the two articles here. regardless, this article is unsourced and, i believe, unnecessary considering the redundancy. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually i am not completely sure, what is the wiki policy in this area. are other companies allowed to maintain unsourced lists of their products on wikipedia? WookieInHeat (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

after reading this talk page, maybe that user is right, this type of comparison of their products could be appropriate. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I shunted this list to a separate page rather than deleting it because I thought it had the potential to become useful (with a lot of work by a helpful editor). But I would not oppose a consensus to delete. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral maybe you're right, don't want to be the deletion nazi going around destroying information with potential. so, unless another editor points out a reason to delete i will change to neutral. really only nominated this because of the seemingly promotional nature, but also just wanted to bring attention to it because i was unsure if the copy and paste editing violated any copyright policy. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2010 (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.