Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED Headliner

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. The clear consensus is to delete. If a redirect is made, it should be made after deleting this advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LED Headliner

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

This article appears to be based on a non-notable product. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the users own response demonstrates the original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Deletion, explanation-------------------------

Dear IRWolfie,

This Wikipedia Article about a new technology was presented the 7th dec. 2010 and there were many critics coming up, which I tried to respond by enclosing primary and seccondary literature, like patents which you can check. This article is not about a product at all, it is about a new technology. If you need some proof that this technology is existing, please be invited to come to RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FAIR, 23.-27.4.2012 in Hannover. I will get you the ticket and show it to you. If you need to see some 3D-curved, ready to bond in car, OEM Trim materials with headliner LED films, please be invited to come to SUN-TEC Swiss United Technologies in Switzerland. I will even ask OEMs to talk to you, if you need.

I do admit, that presenting this technology in early market stage on Wikipedia had following advantage: The technology was presented Just In Time, and any change of the know how could be integrated rapidly and this integration knowledge could be traced by date. Consequently, after more than 15 month of work on this Wikipedia Article, this new critic as <<Non-Notable product>> is good for big companies. The deletion of this article will kill the official technology knowledge that was presented since 7th december 2010 to Wikipedia.

My question is:

a) What is the definition of non-notable product for a technology page? b) Why was it not defined earlier? c) What do I have to add to prove it is notable?

Kind regards,DS

Copy of answer of IRWolfie on his own talking page----------

Patents are primary, an article requires significant coverage by independent secondary sources for notability. IRWolfie- 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy of next question from Dshavit to IRWolfie on his own talking page------------

I know. The technology was presented on 2 world conferences of glass technology in Finnland and the proceedings were mentioned as secondary literature. And it was printed in 2 other papers also listed in this article.

10.^ Download article: D. Shavit, Transparent Electronic Interlayers, Proceedings of GPD Conference, June 2009, pp. 177–180 11.^ Download article: D. Shavit; Developments of LEDs and SMD Electronics on transparent conductive polyesterfilms, Vacuum International 1/2007, Page 34-36 12.^ D. Shavit: Elektronische Komponenten in Glaslaminaten: Entwicklung, Stand und Ausblick, Glas, Architektur & Technik, 1/2007 13.^ D. Shavit: LED- and SMD embedded Polyester Interlayer Film for Lighting, Sensoric and functional Glass, Poster Session at GPD Glass Performance Days, June 2007, Page 28

Which of these conferences proceedings or articles do you define as non notable and why? Best regards, Dshavit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshavit (talk • contribs)

Further Comment He has also created these related articles Ledglass Transparent_LED_embedded_glass Dichroic_LEDGlass LEDFilm which are all based on the same concept. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll leave me a note if/when you move those articles toward deletion. I've removed primary and COI material as much as possible, but these other articles are all of the same calibre. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are similar in style, is a group AfD an appropriate action? --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's also created: Transparent heating film which again references himself exclusively. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dog's breakfast of an article. Clear original research with only low- or no-value references. Suggest the author is guided towards Wikia where this sort of thing belongs. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AFD nom was not completed, which I have now fixed. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry; I was wondering why the AfD was taking several weeks. I've started to use twinkle now so it shouldn't be an issue again. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No actual notability demonstrated by reliable sources providing in-depth coverage. These things exist, but they're not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is sub-standard. Needs to be rewritten in encyclopedic terms with better references. I can't see anything that makes it notable at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ESSAY, WP:OR. WP:ADVERT. Poorly written with respect to Wikipedias standards. Particularly poor article lead as it does not summarise the contents sufficiently well that a casual reader can gain an easy understanding of the topic. Is written more like a magazine article than an encyclopedic entry. Not appropriate content for Wikipedia in its current form and it's hard to blieve it could be easily salvageable. Suggest the primary author read Wikipedia's guidelines prior to making any more submissions, including a re-write of any topic relating to those mentioned above.

The deletion of this article will kill the official technology knowledge that was presented since 7th december 2010 to Wikipedia It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be any industries official source for anything, indeed it runs opposite to Wikipedia's purpose to be the primary source of any information. If there are no other sources of this information anywhere the subject fails notability. --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An advertisement is not encyclopedic. The article needs a substantial rewrite and as one other commented may be beyond redemption in its current form. Also the technology is not particularly notable unless you are the manufacturer. As Stepho suggests, a brief comment in another article about automotive interior lighting or headliners would surfice. NealeFamily (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:ADVERT. The article itself says that the product was developed by a single group, the Stella Consortium. The amount of detail for the development and construction is clearly reflecting a single manufacturer - it is very specific and not at all generic. In short, it's an advert. It only deserves a small paragraph in the headliner article and in whichever article covers automotive interior lighting. Stepho talk 04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rewrite or delete - no good in its current state as per the comments made above. Warren (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledglass is about an article by the same contributor with the same basic problems as this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also this closely related [[1]] afd as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest a merger of LED-embedded glass, LED Film and LED Headliner. Biscuittin (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, you need to provide reasoning as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (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.