Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1080i


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

1080i

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only two sources has had a more citations needed tag for just over 9 years. Possibly fails WP:V Slender (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is obviously notable. I've seen it many times with my electronic devices. Deletion is not cleanup; we don't delete just because an article doesn't have references (unless in specific cases like WP:BLPPROD). WIKINIGHTS talk 21:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This should definitely not be deleted (it's obviously notable, as said), but perhaps it would be better to merge it somewhere? I don't think it's self-evident that we're better off having every resolution/scan type combination as a separate article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment When I was creating this deletion discussion I was also thinking about WP:TNT because of how undersourced the article is and the possibility of OR being in it. Slender (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can just TNT everything except the lead. TNT-worthy articles on another level, like if the writing style is unreadable, everything is OR, or everything (even the lead) is technical and incomprehensible to the average reader. WIKINIGHTS talk 12:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that this article has had 60,000 pageviews over the past 30 days. I think this qualifies for SNOW; AfD is not the forum to ask for an article merge. WIKINIGHTS talk 12:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOW. Nom seems to have failed to do WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search shows enough coverage in the first page to satisfy WP:GNG. AfDs are not meant to improve article quality, they are to gain consensus on whether an article's subject is or is not notable, and this one clearly is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously notable and article worthy. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notableJackattack1597 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn’t nominate this because of it’s notability. I know it’s notable. The main reason I nominated this is due to it being very undersourced for nearly 10 years. Since with not enough sources in the article we have no idea what parts of it are possibly OR/dubious claims. I was hoping that this be deleted so the article can then be re-created/rewritten to bring it’s content up to meet WP:V like I noted when initiating this discussion the article only has TWO cited references. Thank you for understanding. Slender (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could boldly TNT every part of the article except the lead, as I suggested. There is no need to delete the good part of the article just because the larger part is bad. Or if someone is willing to, they can try to find RS to confirm some of the uncited statements in the article. Much of the unsourced content seems intuitive or obvious, and I would not assume it is false at first glance. I will add some sources myself. WIKINIGHTS talk 00:07, 19 August 2021 (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.