Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senseye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 9 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 05:45, 9 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. v/r - TP 20:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Senseye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Product is still being developed; an article can be developed when the product is released. Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 15:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Right now just an idea, not a product. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep it appears that the subject has received a fair amount of coverage over the past several years. I believe it may meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 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, Bmusician 02:52, 10 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, Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The higher ranking English language results all refer to a range of LCD monitors from Benq. There also appear to be a number of academic papers which relate to an apparently separate camera sensor network of the same name. Sources that are really about the subject are much less common. I managed to find quite a few sources (e.g. [1][2] [3] [4]). However, I'm inclined to suggest that given the narrow range of publication dates (all in last 4 months - with all but one or two published in the first week of December 2011) and the identical pictures used (along with similar prose in some cases), they all relate to the same press release. If this is the case, IMHO, it is perhaps questionable as to whether all the different sources count as significant coverage? Pit-yacker (talk) 20:02, 20 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.