Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Print Fee

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Print Fee

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

This article is a technical description and has nothing more to add. hence, it belongs more to Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit I am biased, being that I wrote the article, but I believe as a reference for someone researching film projection this is important. I always view Wikipedia as a reference and when I couldn't find anything on VPF, I felt it worth creating an article for reference. Encyclopedia Reference

The article is a bit of a stub and could use some more work, but I'm not sure it should be deleted. Maybe it should be absorbed into the Digital Cinema page if it can't function as a standalone?

I'm not quite clear why you find this a "technical description" could you please clarify what about the article makes it a technical description and less of an encyclopedia entry? I would be happy to change the aspects that make it seem like a technical description! Wikitionary v. Wikipedia AzryckAnin (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a subject about which we could and should have an article, but a Wikipedia article does need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. An faq on a company web site is not really what we're looking for--even when their purpose is to define terms in their business field. Articles in technical magazines or journals, or material in standard textbooks,makes the best sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks DGG! That's helpful, I made some edits and added some additional citations from The New York Times and Professor David Bordwell, who is an author of numerous textbooks on film. It is difficult to find textbooks on the subject matter as they are currently being written (and if I am not incorrect, David Bordwell may very well turn his current blog into a textbook on digital projection). However I hope that these additional citations help to add a bit of credibility and verifiability to the entry? AzryckAnin (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept look encyclopedia and we appear to have a willing editor to fix the (many) issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - according to Google books, the topic has been published fairly well. Seems more than a dictionary definition. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:16, 11 February 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.