Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Four (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Four

Source Four (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any secondary coverage of the product, the article is written like an advertisement, and has been tagged since at least 2016. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above, or because they are related and show no notability:

Electronic Theatre Controls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Source Four PAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Products. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion logs of Electronic Theatre Control, and Source Four. May qualify for CSD. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sourcing is patents and press-releases or industry mags? Nothing I'd consider keeping, and I can't find mentions of this lighting system. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They talk about it here, but it's simply captions to various diagrams or photos, nothing I'd call extensive [1] Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Source4 PAR article links to several books which (at least to me), seem pretty independent... I'm sure they could be used in the Source4 article as well. AriTheHorse 22:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, fair. But the advertising language can be fixed, right? I'll see if I can find any secondary sources... AriTheHorse 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the three, the Source Four PAR article seems to have the least number of problems, it should probably be kept.

Also, just to clarify, notability is related to the subjects' prevalence in reliable texts, not in real-life? AriTheHorse 22:59, 23 October 2023 (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.