Deletion of Retina display

Comment: into pixel density which covers the topic in a more neutral way with more historical perspective, per ,  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SOAP||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: per  and because the nominator fails to put forth a policy-based reason for deletion.  Articles about marketing terms are not inherently problematic if they pass , which this one does easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:GNG)

Comment: Article is as cited as it's going to get, and where Apple goes the rest of the display industry is eventually going to go (if under a different more general term). No real deletion reason beyond a |not liking the term was presented
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDLI)

Comment: It meets , but in the longer term when all the news excitement dies down in a year or so and these things become commonplace, it should eventually become a section in a larger article about high resolution displays in that class. Users do search for this term (about http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Retina_display 10,000 a day as of this writing), and as a service to them Wikipedia should provide the information. But in time, it will become a footnote in the history of displays and should just become a section in a larger article. But there is need for serious content clean up here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Obviously meets the |general notability guideline and other core policies like |verifiability. The reasoning given in the nomination is not related to policy and does not abide by common sense, since we have tons of articles related to trademarked terms
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V)