Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GigE Vision

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 keep. Tone 06:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

GigE Vision

GigE Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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

Search for GigE Vision on HighBeam

This is blatant Advertising and this page should be removed. Richie1921 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a standard that's widely used in an industry I'm heavily involved in. If there's a need to modify the phrasing to make it sound less adverty, then do that, but it's not worthy of deletion. Plus, I suspect this nomination is malformed right now, please make sure it's submitted correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Nominator was blocked per WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Numerous reliable sources:
  • http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-201844856.html
  • http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-313012900.html
  • http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-196533591.html
  • https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=uwANOc0AAAAJ&citation_for_view=uwANOc0AAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
  • http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5985700&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5985700
  • http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4439992&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4439992
  • http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4635711&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4635711

...and so on. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. There's significant coverage of this on Google scholar (around 700 publications that mention it, and around 50 with it in the title of the publication, many of which appear completely independent of each other and of any commercial activities related to this subject. I think that's plenty of material for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - The tone could be improved, yes, it's a little non-encyclopedic. I wouldn't say this was merely advertising - it has wide coverage, as has been demonstrated. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I copypasted SageGreenRider's links to the article...
• Keep - but improve the tone to make it more encyclopedic nocnokneo (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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.