Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D comfort and acceptance

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. No referenced content so nothing to merge. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D comfort and acceptance

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

This is an unreferenced essay full of WP:OR, any valuable content it may have is already contained in 3D film. Tried to speedy as duplicating the 3D film, but admin. felt that did not apply. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article, although well-intended, is not encyclopedic in form. The history of 3D's acceptance and any real or imagined comfort or health issues should be covered in 3D film, as these are really the most important issues with the topic (besides how it's done.)Steve Dufour (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with you. this page "3D Comfort and acceptance" is also a research project where the various scientific will contribute, just give them some time before deleting so fast. I linked this article to 3D film page, but i am not sure the reader of that page is interesting by the details of the research on human factors, only some of them will come to see this page. please note that this research project is a national funded project and the results are given for free to this encyclopedia, you might consider the very important contribution this represents. on 3D film, i see some "3d bashing" speaking about not proven injured people due to 3D, i dont think the serious research made in this project should be copied in that page except if you clean the non medical stuff that is reported in 3D film. thank you to let this page valid, moreso we forwarded it to renowned scientists that are preparing contribution, i dont think this would be a good idea to delete a page that busy people are writing for the sake of sharing the discoveries in your encyclopedia. thanks for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe17121 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful and intelligable content into [[3D film. If there isn't any...and the article is so badly written that I can't tell... delete. I see no reason why this topic meris more than a para in "3D film".TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not seem like a salvageable article, especially due to the large amount of original research. The topic itself does not seem encyclopedic in nature. Agtx (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is anything useful, put it in 3D film. Darx9url (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2015 (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.