Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of displays by pixel density


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

List of displays by pixel density

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating this article for deletion after a discussion made here:. After having that discussion, I already nominated Comparison of stackable switches for deletion, and it was deleted after this discussion: Articles for deletion/Comparison of stackable switches. This article has similar issues, so I'm nominating it on the same ground: Please, do not make arguments in the discussion like "There are other similar articles". The goal is to delete all such articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Article violates WP:SPAM as it is biased toward certain manufacturers, as it does not contain all displays that exist. Listing some manufacturers and products, but not others is not neutral, and lists like this can never be neutral, so it should be deleted.
 * It is almost impossible to make it up-to date, which makes it per se incorrect. Article that is per se incorrect should be deleted.
 * Article violates WP:IINFO as it contains "excessive listings of statistics" but it does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per the above provided nomination proposal, as well as per the above linked discussions. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Articles like these serve only as incomplete product guides. Wikipedia should not be a product catalog (nor a parts catalog...). It is fine if articles on displays include manufacturer and model number of particular display products, if they are historically significant, and if they are described in proper context (why they were significant, what they influenced, etc.). This article does none of that; the organization by manufacturer is even detrimental to those goals. It does not contribute to the goals of an encyclopedia, and since it can never be complete, it is not very useful as a product guide either. Jeh (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: unmaintainable, loosely defined, this list is not useful for any purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Nom's ban on mentioning the rest of Wikipedia aside, OTHERSTUFF is a reasonable attempt to provide some specificity to vague rules, and a failed attempt to prove a reasonable standard, which is something that examples can only partially prove. I note this because banning any discussion of WP community standards is flatly unacceptable, and the wording given does not preclude such a ban. Anarchangel (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply said, that's why we're here to discuss it. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:54, 4 August 2014 (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.