Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projector PSA

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Projector PSA

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

The few sources that can be accessed are not true third party sources, or, like ref 3, press releases. Given the very minor prizes, Iwouldn;t expect more DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many source links were broken. Updated source links with current URLs. Added additional source from third party (ref 4). Ref 3 is article written by industry analyst, not press release as stated. TimeThief123 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reference #3 in the current version is definitely not a press release, but maybe numbering has changed. What it actually is is a trivial mention in an article about a broader subject, and thus doesn't convey notability. However, references #1, #4, and #7 are reports by industry experts which appear to be reliable sources. Reference #5 is a professional editorial review. Combined, these sources show that the GNG is met. For the record, there are zero press releases in the current version of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the writeups I looked at were independently written, so WP:GNG is met OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (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.