Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliStar 2 Jr

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar 2 Jr

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

Is a technology that delivers weather information, but I don't think it's worth its own article because little have heard of this outside of the small The Weather Channel geek base. If anything it should be merged into WeatherStar. MikeM2011 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with IntelliStar 2 This system and the IntelliStar 2 are pretty much one in the same in terms of general appearance, only that this system is for standard definition video, and not HD like the IntelliStar 2. The two systems may be different, but their technology is very similar to one another. --Z L Media 23:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge or redirect to IntelliStar 2. Could not find any reliable source (RS) coverage, even a mention, except for a copy of an apparently leaked, confidential installation guide from The Weather Channel. (It says in bold, uppercase letters "DO NOT COPY" in the introductory "COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL" section.) There is very limited non-RS discussion of the topic in a couple web forums, most notably one called twctoday.com (example thread). Unless a reliable source can be found, it shouldn't even be mentioned in other articles. Agyle (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 16 June 2014 (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.