Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2160p


 * 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 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

2160p

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contains only crystal-balling. References are completely irrelevant to the information inside the article and external links are merely proof-of-concept demos, not actually defining a standard as the article seems to claim.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I think crystal ball is meant to be applied to Wikipedians forecasting the future, not the rest of the world. If everyone does it, it's not really crystal ball anymore. Like having a page for the 2016 olympics. It hasn't happened yet, but they are definitely working on it. Sources:    . There's also a number of journal articles discussing 2160p. Seems real enough to me. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All of them happen to be proof of concepts and demos. Unless anyone can show that an official 2160p standard is being worked on, it's just crystal ball predictions. The Gran Turismo demo happened to just be four systems joined together to form a pseudo-2160 image. On the contrary, Super Hi-Vision is a proposed standard with the approval of the Japanese government, with support by multiple major broadcasting corporations. 2160p is the exact opposite; merely a hack-up of several 1080p video displays to show off demos and whatnot.


 * Basically, 2160p is not a proposed standard nor are there any experimental TV transmissions with the format, but just an odd display resolution made by a few TV manufacturers, so it shouldn't have its own article.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If people write about it, and make prototype products even that get reviewed, then it is no longer CRYSTAL.    DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're completely missing the point here. Read my comments above. Articles like this are not supposed to be about a certain prototype display but rather a proposed standard or some type of super-high definition format being worked on. Writing an unsourced article about vague collections of display monitors with high resolutions is hardly encyclopedic.


 * (Also please pay a bit more attention when de-prodding articles like this; check the sources, don't just look at the article, see apparent sourcing, and then remove the tag. Especially when it's regarding a completely unrelated section [which I've since removed as it has absolutely no bearing to the subject of the article]. The idea of prodding is to address a nominator's concerns and examine the article!)

 GraYoshi2x► talk 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete The article says it is a proposed standard. Standards are a BIG DEAL. No references to a CE organization, VESA, IEEE, ISO, or any standards organization exists for this article. One-off prototypes at CES are not reference sources or standards. The existence of high-resolution monitors is not a standard. This resolution is an obvious choice for post-HD products, but it isn't a standard. Several standards above HD already exist, and most don't have articles, the abbreviations redirect to several other articles. We don't create articles on every XX by YY video resolution that gets a few products. Recommend redirect to List of common resolutions. Miami33139 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone who can understand my reasons for deletion. Standards are indeed quite a big deal.  GraYoshi2x► talk 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There may be no standard, but the term is in relatively common use to refer to 3820x2160 televisions, with sources in the article and more on the internet. http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37511/97/, for example.  If the problem is that the article implies that there is a standard which is not yet (and may never be) in existence, we can fix the article. gnfnrf (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles titled like this should be about a standard. Labeling it as 2160p is very misleading as there is no official designation unlike 1080p and the resolution is hardly used. You're also mistaken since such products are extremely rare and are sold to large corporations as monitors (NOT televisions) or made simply for CES demos. The terminology isn't common either: there are only 46,600 Ghits for the term, as opposed to more than 28 million for 1080p or even 1.4 million for Super Hi-Vision (which is an actual experimental standard). GraYoshi2x► talk 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - It also seems that people with little knowledge of television-related technologies are posting here, which makes a very awkward deletion discussion as people have to end up explaining to them what the problems are with the article. I would ask people with a little more technical insight to please leave your reasoning here.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTAL to claim this falls under it, it's certainly against the spirit and intention of the rule. The fact a technology is proposed and/or under development is not the same as saying that any article about it is speculative. I'm sure the 2160p article could be improved, but there's no call to actually delete it, which is a draconian and serious action whose harmful consequences tend to be underestimated by those who propose it. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is NOT under development nor is it a proposed standard. I've stated that multiple times above. Please actually read my reasoning before making a statement that completely contradicts what I just said. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. There is no such experimental standard for "2160p" (which doesn't even give any proper Google search results) as opposed to Super Hi-Vision.  GraYoshi2x► talk 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read your statement. It's wrong. Indeed, if you care to look at Super Hi-Vision, you'll see that much of the development was used using technologies originally designed for 2160p, such as 2160p CCD sensors. And before criticising me for not reading your comments (I did), you might want to read mine - I didn't say it's a proposed standard, I said it's a technology that's proposed and/or under development. In this case, it's both. 2160p panels and cameras are under development and in some cases are in production and being sold. Super Hi-Vision tests were conducted using 2160p sensors arranged in arrays. They exist. The technology exists. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The camera itself was built with four 2.5 inch (64 mm) CCDs each with a resolution of only 3840 × 2048" - Explain to me where it states that it used "2160p" displays and CCDs. Sounds like you need to do a little more research before just posting misconceptions here. Articles titled with such a name ([x vertical lines of resolution]i/p) should be about an actual experimental or proposed standard, not some one-off fancy display resolution. Should we create an article on 600p because a few netbook manufacturers made a screen with a resolution of 1024x600? I think not. It should either be redirected (as in this case) or simply deleted if it were created.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand GraYoshi2x's point. I disagree with his claim that it is not under development. Several companies are indeed producing prototypes that they describe as "2160p". I understand that GraYoshi2x does not consider these as real 2160p screens. I agree that it is not yet a formally proposed standard. In my opinion, the term is used widely enough by different independent sources as to justify its inclusion. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has little to do with notability as you are suggesting. The fact that this isn't a proposed standard alone is enough to warrant deletion, especially if it's not real as you say. Anyways if you support my exact reasoning then why are you suggesting to keep the article?  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the fact that this isn't a proposed standard is enough to warrant deletion. I don't support your exact reasoning. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:52, 17 October 2009 (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.