Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother HL-1250

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. Courcelles 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brother HL-1250

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

Article was proposed for deletion, but I would like to see a proper debate on the subject first. Printersturnmeon (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:PRODUCT which states, "If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely...If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion." In this case, since there is no evidence of notability, the proposed deletion was the right way to go in my opinion. But since the article creator removed the PROD, we are at AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unless notability can be shown, which I doubt. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If the printer truly is notable, please provide references that are not directly from Brother's website as notable sources. The only sources that have been provided so far were a support page on what its error LEDs mean, and a specs sheet. Neither prove notability to me. Phuzion (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ConcernedVancouverite. A general article on Brother printers may be a good idea though, along the lines of HP LaserJet 4000 series. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Article does not establish notability and only contains primary source references. – Zntrip 08:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero notable links that could help this as a encylclopedic article. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Per RfD for August 6, this is a persistent problem. MSJapan (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That RfD was a transient aspsect of this same article cycle; it never got deleted; it's still a problem but no evidence for "persistent". Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (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.