Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of OLED manufacturers


 * 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. Consensus is that such lists can exist and are by itself not a reason for deletion but for cleanup and sourcing where necessary. Whether the list itself makes sense to have or should be integrated in the main article as Abductive suggests is something that is not for an AFD discussion to decide.  So Why  08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

List of OLED manufacturers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a random list of information, and this seems to be just that. We might as well list all the LCD or plasma display manufacturers in the world, which is quite a lot. Also completely unsourced so I doubt any of this stuff is accurate.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:LIST and WP:STAND seem to say nothing against such a list. Sources can be found in the linked articles themselves. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Update: Sources added for all entries. -- Cycl o pia  -  talk  22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many things in WP:LIST that say such a list is not encyclopedic and basically falls beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Double check what the list is about as well as the WP guidelines on lists. This is as pointless as making a "List of pencil manufacturers" - so what about it? This list isn't even about who makes the display itself; it's talking about who resells x company's base product and branding it as their own.
 * (In addition, it's unsourced and the external links don't verify the claimed manufacturers) GraYoshi2x► talk 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link what guidelines would forbid this list? And what would be wrong with List of pencil manufacturers? -- Cycl o pia -  talk  22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR, WP:Source list and less importantly WP:LISTPURP (valuable information source). There's nothing worthy of mention; it's more like a "oooh, look, we have the latest up to date trinkets of information on such-and-such product!" type of thing. By the time OLED becomes mainstream (which is next year or so according to various tech-oriented sites), this page will be all but useless. We don't exactly have a List of LCD manufacturers, do we?  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read all of three, and there is not a single quote supporting deletion of such stuff. It is not a directory of irrelevant trivia. The list is informative, it is notable, and useful. I have just sourced all the entries (1 ref each, but you can find tons of sources for each entry). If we don't have a list of LCD manufacturers, it just means someone should go and do one. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about notability first of all; that's irrelevant to this particular list. Seeing a list of manufacturers for some upcoming display technology is not useful; OLED is OLED and there's no difference as to who makes it. If anything it should be only a passing mention in the main article; there's no compelling reason for a list.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to agree that the list is notable, you agree that there is no reason to delete it. As for "OLED is OLED and there's no difference as to who makes it" first:that's your POV (and a strange one: you mean that there all OLEDs are qualitatively the same?), second: it is irrelevant for the discussion. I personally think that it is a useful list: it answers the question "who does OLEDs?" -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's drop this. I have no idea what you're getting at (yes, OLED panels are all made in exactly the same way and are made with the same exact materials and production processes). Accusing me of POV when it is a fact makes you look silly, to be honest, and I have never talked a single word about notability. You're greatly confusing me here. We obviously have very different viewpoints on display technologies.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is not display technologies, of whose engineering intricacies I know next to nothing. The point is that this list is sourced, informative, useful and about a non-trivial intersection of notable subjects. Therefore I think the list should stay unless there is proof of the contrary.
 * About the "POV" thing, what I meant is, unless there is only one source of OLEDs, in principle there is the obvious possibility of at least quality differences between fabricants, even if the production process is formally the same. But this is completely irrelevant to the discussion, so let's drop it.
 * Anyway, let's wait more editors to jump in the discussion. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. We do fight, all around wikipedia, never-ending attempts to promote a certain product, company, etc. This article gives them a legal reason to insert promotion. Whereas it might be theoretically possible to construct such list based on secondary sources, in reality, all citations turn into primary links to the producers themselves, which is simply not acceptable. All the links and refs of this article may be stripped right now, right away as not complying with WP:RS policy. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is utterly false. All links (apart the DuPont one, but that can be easily substituted) are from secondary sources. Even if they were from primary, they would just be primary sources showing that, indeed, they produce OLEDs. As for the "promotion" problem, what do you mean it gives them a legal reason to insert promotion? If there are concerns of this kind, the list can be semi-protected, no need to delete it. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  09:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean that references like this are blatant promotion and are unsuitable for WP; that anyone willing to advertise their OLED product can put the name of their company with an advertisement link, and you can't do much about it, because this is what the page is about - adding companies, with references, per WP standards. I am experiencing those commercial fights on my pages almost every day - companies kicking out competitors, adding their links, substituting other links, etc. A side-note: unpopular pages like this one are very rarely semi-protected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Their use is just to document that the company is an OLED manufacturer; nothing else. If we were debating references debating qualities or virtues of a product, I'd agree with you, but in this case is perfectly fine since what we want to prove is "company X produces OLEDs". If I want to prove that company X produces orange juice, a commercial of the orange juice of the company is a perfectly fine reference. That said, thanks for your comment and I'll try to replace the oled-info.com refs. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  08:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist does have a point. While it's somewhat unrelated to my reasons for nomination, I do see COI company spam being introduced to "manufacturer" type articles every now and then. They're unnoticed for months (sometimes years) too, but semi-protection isn't an option because it doesn't happen within a short period of time. That's just the inherent problem with these types of lists.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A list of notable manufacturers of a notable class of products is a reasonable thing to have. The inclusion of particular companies can be discussed on the talk page. I rely of watching some similar lists to check and remove the attempted inclusion of non-notable companies in some areas very likely to have them--the net effect of having these lists is to make the spam much easier to catch,  and decrease the inclusion of promotional articles.  I agree with Cyclopia that we need more such lists.     DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The inclusion of particular companies can be discussed on the talk page" - how are you going to discriminate? Discuss the notability of every company? In reality, the editor watching the page will have to make a quick decision on that which is just wrong. I ended up with wiping off the whole list to avoid constant edit warring.Materialscientist (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not cleanup and "maintaining article X is hard" cannot be a reason to delete article X. All your concerns are exactly what talk pages and community debate are for. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  08:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the problem of usefulness comes up. When the technology becomes mass-marketed (which seems to be VERY soon; within the next few months or so), there's little need for this article and it'll sure as heck be out of date. Right now, you can't even list how many companies produce LCD panels; they're just too common.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I confess that this kind of reasoning completely escapes me. There are a lot of companies producing LCD: so what? Why shouldn't they be listed? What has the number of companies producing X to do with the usefulness of a list of these companies? Why shouldn't I have need to know who makes LCD and who not? I have no idea who does; if I had this list I would be much happier. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't see why this list of seven known makers of OLEDs couldn't be a single sentence in the main article. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:08, 8 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.