- 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. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Curved TV
- Curved TV ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to have been written as promotion for curved television screens. The topic may well be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia but it would need a rewrite to remove the promotional tone. I will consider withdrawing this nomination for deletion if such a rewrite is done. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am changing my recommendation to keep based on the fact that Sidelight12 has improved the article significantly and made it into a proper article rather than a promotional piece. Thanks! -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is indisputably notable, and AfD is not "articles for cleanup". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Basically it is not a well-written article. Is "curved TV" even the right title? Not "curved screen", which most of the article uses. It is also full of technical nonsense, like the "focal plane" (??) being somewhere else, and this sentence: "Curved screens, however, make it possible to keep the distance light has to travel to reach all points of the screen more or less the same and in this way eliminates the (pincushion) distortion" is obvious nonsense. Pincushion distortion is caused by lens faults, not geometry: a pinhole projects a rectangle (the source image) onto precisely a rectangle (on a flat screen) by simple 3D geometry. The difference in distance affects the light level, so if anything causes the corners to be darker. The stuff about aspect ratios is all wonky too. Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Pretty much advertising!. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and move to 'curved screen' to be about tvs and projection curved screens. Can it be moved during the afd process? I found a few sources, and I will look into it. - Sidelight 12 Talk 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a good article taking a rather more sceptical view: Arstechnica [1] Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's a lot better. It's added, and the original introduction was removed for being off-topic and a marketing prediction. - Sidelight 12 Talk 09:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is cleaned up, by a lot. There was a lot of marketing repetition, which is largely removed. - Sidelight 12 Talk 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Since the nomination, this article (now called Curved screen) has seen a near complete rewrite by Sidelight12. It is no longer promotional and is much more encyclopedic in tone. The sourcing in the article is still fairly light, but there are a number of reliable sources out there, particularly about curved projection screens: "curved projection screen" gets 121 hits at GScholar. There also exist articles on curved screen TVs in the Wall street journal, Ars Technica and CNet, all reliable sources. The topic easily passes notability thresholds per WP:GNG. A rewritten article with the major problems fixed and a notable topic suggest keeping the article. Nice work, Sidelight12! -- Mark viking ( talk) 00:50, 21 March 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.