Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philips Entertaible


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Philips Entertaible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not appear to meet the General Notability Guideline as all coverage I can find appears to be based on press releases. I've not actually been able to find any evidence that this product ever passed the prototype stage, therefore there can be no sustained coverage of it that isn't based on its announcement at 2006's Consumer Electronics Show. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm seeing the same lack of sources but I did find a publisher paper based on the technology for ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. The technology looks interesting and it seems like something that was ahead of its time along with board games (or even tablets?). Maybe if not an article, this could be incorporated into a similar article? – TheGridExe  ( talk )  18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that paper and immediately discarded it because it was written by Philips staff. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but it still didn't seem like it was written for a marketing perspective. The paper discloses from the start that the people writing it are part of Philips. The paper also has its own sources at the end as well. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not an independent source, so it doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG requirement. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One can argue that scientific papers have some level of oversight from the editor which makes them sort-of, kind-of independent, even if not fully. But that argument is extremely weak in the case of conference papers (even for reputable and selective conferences, the editor will review the appropriateness of the paper, but not request changes to it, so oversight is minimal). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's understandable then. I will be ok with a delete per nom. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  13:47, 29 May 2018 (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.