Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StyleWriter 1200

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 merge to StyleWriter. Courcelles 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StyleWriter 1200

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails notability. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a mirror of various manufacturer's sales websites. Edison (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, have you checked for reviews? WIthout doing that, how can you know if the subject lacks significant coverage. The most uyou can mean is that the article at present lacks such coverage, and that';s only a reason for deletion if such references are unfindable. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an efficient use of editor time for each editor of Wikipedia to individually spend a quarter hour scouring assorted data bases, and clicking on possibles which turn out to be unrelated or to be press releases, before concluding that "references are unfindable." There is some expectation that a nominator did that BEFORE nominating. There is a strong expectation that an article creator, or someone from a project devoted to some topic, would do that search. If the creator, the fans from a project, and the nominator have not found any refs, then the article is on shaky ground. You are most welcome to do that and let us know some of the best references. Edison (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that the submitter of this batch of AfD's has, in fact, done this research. AfD seems to have been LES 953's first move - there is nothing on the talk pages and wp:prod was not attempted for any of these. --Kvng (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Apple printers as suggested by submitter 1 day after submitting for AfD. Can we please look for merge targets before AfD? --Kvng (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. That article could use some love and sources. I'll be over there now. BusterD (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge target should be StyleWriter After looking at the subject matter, here's how I suggest it be broken down. List of Apple printers should be a table-fied list, so we can get an overview of the material, with sectioning which corresponds to main articles about each of the primary sub-lines (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, StyleWriter). So best merge target here would be StyleWriter, not List of Apple printers. IMHO, each of the main sub-lines is notable enough on its own, in innovation and supporting sources, to be worthy of its own page. All that work needs to be done, but I think the Apple printer list should be a table, capturing much of the data in the infoboxes. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 21:40, 24 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.