Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/720i


 * 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   merge to 720p. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

720i

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not a standard resoultion. It should be deleted. Hinata  talk  15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —  ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  18:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the article says this is nothing more than an erroneous term! Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So does the source supporting it. The existence of this error, and the reason that it is an error, is verifiable knowledge that belongs in the encyclopaedia.  Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it has a reference doesn't mean it is necceary... it is useless... and, it is not useful, serves no information, and is not even a paragraph! But OK, since you want it so bad, state your reasons? -- Hinata  talk  22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have, kiddo. Read them, and try having more than one tool in your toolbox.  Not everything is addressed by deletion.  Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Technically original research, and, more likely-than-not, cruft - especially considering it does not exist. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not technically original research at all. Indeed, exactly what the article says is supported by page 13 of the book cited as its source.  This content is in no way an original thesis nonexistent outwith Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the HDTV article as a plausible misnomer. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is futile to do, it really isn't even HDTV. It would be EDTV. -- Hinata  talk  14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine whatever. Redirect to 720p then, as a plausible misnomer. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 65.93.14.196 is quite right. The content here is verifiable from the sources cited (which I just read and checked for myself) and not original research at all (the book saying what this article says).  We shouldn't lose this content.  The best place for it is in 720p, as indeed the very source cited indicates, and this should be merged &mdash; not redirected losing information from the encyclopaedia &mdash; there.  No exercise of the deletion tool is required. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. OK, you may merge... but what is the point when this article is not even a paragraph, and that this serves no usefulness. References that just site it does not mean that it is correct; it has no usefulness. Delete due to it being a stub, and a largely useless one at that -- Hinata   talk  22:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously asking what is the point of merging and retaining verifiable information that informs a reader, correcting an error with a redirect and even explaining the correction with the prose already written? Have you not grasped the basics of what we're trying to do in this project?  We're trying to write an encyclopaedia that informs the reader, including informing the reader of a common error that the world has documented and explained, in a For Dummies book, no less.  Are you really trying to make Wikipedia a less informative reference work than a For Dummies book?  Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then redirect it, and add the information to it. -- Hinata  talk  15:30, 21 January 2011 (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.