Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XpanD (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XpanD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not cite any sources, does not give any sources other than the company's website itself, and appears to have little purpose other than advertising. It's subject also appears to not be notable. Angel Cupid (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree - this 3D cinema technology has growing market share in Europa and this article has some important technical details about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.7.201 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to remain, though, it has to demonstrate notability and the information has to be verifiable. It needs to give reliable sources other than the company's website itself. Also, thank you for your comment, but to determine community consensus, we need to have at least several votes from established registered users. Angel Cupid (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bit promotional flavored. No significant coverage, no notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy to author and let him clean out the advert and add proper sources before it is allowed to return. It appears that proper sources may be available... so I suggest there be no prejudice against recreation. Perhaps a candidate for WP:INCUBATE? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.