Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retina display


 * 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 Greg   Heffley   18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Retina display

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

don't need a whole article for one vendor's marketing term vsync (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is as cited as it's going to get, and where Apple goes the rest of the display industry is eventually going to go (if under a different more general term). No real deletion reason beyond a not liking the term was presented.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And so will we then have an article for what Sony calls their slightly higher-resolution displays? And another for for Motorola's ever-so-smooth pixels? Dude, you're getting a...n article about whatever Dell will call it. vsync (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't ever use the cite-needed tag to refactor AfD rationales of others. I have reverted your addition of it to my rationale because clearly I was talking in generalities, not like I was writing an article. Also, trademark means only Apple can use the term because they own the rights to the term, so other companies have to come up with a different name for their form of the technology.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously meets the general notability guideline and other core policies like verifiability. The reasoning given in the nomination is not related to policy and does not abide by common sense, since we have tons of articles related to trademarked terms. Steven Walling &bull; talk   04:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see the list of articles each of which consist entirely of a single trademark, not for a product (or product line), but just a brand for a generic quality (not feature) not unique to that vendor. And the common sense aspect is simply that an explosion of such articles would serve no one. How about NPOV in giving Apple such pride of place? vsync (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still not making any kind of argument based in policy. Just because you don't like Apple's use of a marketing term doesn't mean it's not notable. Steven Walling &bull; talk   07:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. I'm not buying the slippery slope argument that vsync is presenting on account that all articles should each be taken on their own merits. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable subject, may need some work but is widely known. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, then merge It meets WP:NOTE, but in the longer term when all the news excitement dies down in a year or so and these things become commonplace, it should eventually become a section in a larger article about high resolution displays in that class. Users do search for this term (about 10,000 a day as of this writing), and as a service to them Wikipedia should provide the information. But in time, it will become a footnote in the history of displays and should just become a section in a larger article. But there is need for serious content clean up here. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMPORARY Roodog2k (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is so. Time will tell how things will change in that field, so in time an overview article may/should appear, and the way Wikipedia works, even policy may change in a year or two - who knows. That would be the time to discuss a possible merge, not now, as I suggested. But for now, a keep (or even speedy keep) is the way to go, of course. History2007 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dig it, I knew what you meant. I commented the way I did for the sake of the nom, so s/he can read the guideline. Roodog2k (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I searched for this info and found it. That's what I like about Wiki. Thus, Keep or redirect to appropriate point in an other article. --Janke | Talk 08:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia should have articles for notable brand names and trademarks. Retina display has been widely discussed and it's likely that people are going to search for it to find out what it means and why it's different.  Wikipedia should provide this information in a factual, NPOV way.  Apple is one of the biggest corporations in the USA, is a subject of in-depth press coverage, and is an object of incredible fascination for many people, in a way that other technology companies are not.  In contrast, new screens from Sony, Motorola, Sharp, HTC, Huawei, or other smaller or less famous companies are unlikely to get the same coverage or excite the same interest, and hence will probably not get articles.  Keep as notable, a likely search term, and something of interest and value to users. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's a dumb marketing term that makes little sense, but it is notable and easily verifiable, sort of like Ultrabook. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into pixel density which covers the topic in a more neutral way with more historical perspective, per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:RECENTISM. Warden (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I had considered suggesting that, but thought that pixel density is too general an issue and currently deals with PPI calculations etc. Obviously the term "Retina display" is Apple's term for this type of technology, but there is a more important element at play here. As one talks about increase in speed, all speeds are not similar. At some point we reach the sound barrier and that is a major paradigm shift. Debate will take place as to whether 330 pixels is the actual barrier, or if there is a buffer zone around it. But that is not as crucial as the fact that display technology is now at the key turning point. The technology is not Apple's but that of LG Display, so sooner or later Samsung and others will catch up. Then a separate article on these ground-breaking (or shall I say sound-braking) technologies and how it relates to human vision and perception will be the suitable place to discuss them all. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Traditional media such as ink, paint and photography have had resolutions higher than this for centuries. The level of pixel density in digital displays has been creeping up for years - see list of displays by pixel density and history of display technology.  All we seem to have here is marketing hype - just look at the article's sources - Apple, a blog and a review which rubbishes Apple's claim.  This is just not special enough to be covered separately. Warden (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In List of displays by pixel density, how many have PPI above 330? And as I said, the actual number may be debated, but there is a barrier, after which the retina is surpassed. And digital technology is getting close to that barrier, and depending on how you count it may have reached it. This is no longer just an incremental step. The review that criticizes Apple's claim disputes the number where the barrier is reached, not dispute the existence of the barrier. The barrier exists. But this should really be based on WP:RS sources in the article, not a discussion between the two of us. I asked for ideas and more sources here in any case, and that may provide RS sources for the larger article. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The pixel density at which the Retina claim will be voided by the viewing distance: HDTVs in living rooms are also Retina Displays, not because of Pixel Density, but just because we are using it at a far enough distance so the pixel grids disappear. With the trend progression from from iPhone 4, iPad 3, and the new MacBook Pro, what defines a Retina Display within Apple will always be "doubled" pixel resolution (dividing one pixel into four smaller pixels). Shencypeter (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the case that they double up and that item should really be added to the article. I am/was not going to work on that article, but the G-books link for it is here now and also discusses the fuzzy image issues, etc. I listed it on Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. There are multiple suitable target articles, like those on pixels, displays screen, etc. or those on Apple and its products. (Let's discuss this.) However, from my humble point of view, this article is not satisfying Notability or What Wikipedia is not. For one thing, it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. For another, not every hint of the possibility of an improved future product needs an article in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soap box, not an advertisement agency, not a crystal ball and not a blog. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep There is no valid claim against guidelines made by the nom for deletion of this article. Classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, Roodog2k.
 * I'm curious; what is "Snow keep"? Did you mean to write "slow keep"?
 * Thanks in advance
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW is the link, I think. History2007 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Currently a popular marketing term, which makes it plausible someone would want to look up its definition in an encyclopedia. —Ruud 21:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW and because the nominator fails to put forth a policy-based reason for deletion. Articles about marketing terms are not inherently problematic if they pass WP:GNG, which this one does easily.  -Scottywong | spout _  22:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Scottywong and Roodog2k's arguments. Haseo9999 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Wired magazine among others have written articles about this thing.   D r e a m Focus  14:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I came via a Google search to find out what a "retina display" was. I now know. This is exactly the function of an encyclopedia.  fredgandt  23:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any real argument to delete it. It's a trademarked marketing term, sure, but one that has a fairly clear definition (pixel density so high as to make individual pixels indiscernible at a specific viewing distance) and will no doubt become a Generic Thing like "HD" as more and more device manufacturers cross the "pixel density barrier."  I'd recommend making a generic page and then adding to it "retina display" (and all the other similar terms that will follow soon) but I can't think of a better phrase.  Like "Aspirin" or "Band-Aid" the first trademarked version is likely to also become the generic term.  Randyest (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for these three simple reasons. 1) the subject is notable and spoken about quite a bit lately, in and out of the Net.  2) It's STAND-ALONE in and of itself, at this point.     When a reviewer of an Apple product says "and the retina display is...", well, what is he talking about?  Something to do with pixel appearance etc.   Something that is a subject by itself at this point (though obviously related to other things).   And 3) the matter is well-sourced and referenced AS a stand-alone subject.  Just go to wired.com and pcmag.com or cnet.com to see what I'm talking about.  I could also throw in (as a related reason) that this topic is of interest to many readers, techy and not-so-techy types.   To have a better idea what is meant here with that specific term.   And seeing that the vast majority of editors on here want this "kept", it seems, at this point, "snowballs" are in play.   Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2012 (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.