Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme High Definition


 * 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   delete. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge it into one of the targets suggested. J04n(talk page) 10:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Extreme High Definition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable marketing gimmick created by a company. Does not use full HD resolution. If it became a widely accepted technology, it might be included in another article and would not warrant its own. NickCochrane (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - can't find anything that suggests it's a widely used term. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Google search shows a couple of mentions from around 2006. But it was only ever a bit of marketing terminology, and doesn't describe a notable product/technology. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's basically nothing more than a description of what "Extreme High Definition" means, and it lacks the coverage in primary sources that is the most fundamental part of every notability guideline. In other words, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alan(E) 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Graphics display resolution or Display resolution. Please consider merging WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. This was a product announcement and marketing campaign from 2006 and doesn't seem to have gained enough coverage to achieve general notability required for a stand-alone article. Here is the coverage I found:, and.
 * 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.