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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PHOLED[edit]

This article's contents have remained substantially unchanged since its creation by an anonymous editor in September 2005. The article is in substance only sourced by references to the website (which is offline) of the company owning the trademark on "PHOLED", Universal Display Corporation. Most or all internet coverage I'm immediately able to find on "PHOLED" seem to be press releases by this corporation. If no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources is uncovered in this AfD, this article should be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable. Sandstein (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up spammy article that reads like a press release. NYT coverage and if you sift thru the PR on Google News Archive there's a bit more. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PHOLED is a unique lighting/display technology that is more than qualified for its own article on Wikipedia. Graham Wellington (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Graham is right, PHOLED deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Danh (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so, but an article requires substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, so as to satisfy our guideline WP:N and our policy WP:V. The NYT article cited by Dhartung is a good start, but be need a bit more. Sandstein (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2007 (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.