Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banner page

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 Spooling. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banner page[edit]

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

Deprodded. Search for sourcing turned up nothing but uses of the term — nothing that would possibly flesh this out beyond a dicdef. The fact that this has been completely untouched since 2006 is inexcusable. Fails WP:WINAD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly this is a description of a 'thing' and is not a dictionary definition. I easily found this and this. Whether this is an appropriate subject for a standalone article or should be merged somewhere else (Printer (computing)?) is debatable. We probably have lots of articles that have not been significantly improved since 2006 - it isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. The other alternative is to work on it, which anyone can do - it isn't up to 'other people' to improve articles. --Michig (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard feature of a print spooler. It has nothing to do with dictionaries as our policy makes clear. If a banner tag has been there for seven years without result then it's the banner which is useless and which should be removed. Warden (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden: So in your words, no article should ever have an {{unreferenced}} on it? Also, "It's notable because it's notable" is hardly a valid argument. How about some sources, hmm? Or did you forget that part? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, so standard feature is irrelevant if not the subject of significant coverage in its own right (which may exist, but I don't see it here or in my brief search). Seems like it might be worth expanding upon in the print spool article though? --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to print spooler. The article is clearly more than a dicdef, going into history, purpose, and properties of banners. These were much more important in the early days of timeshare systems, when most computer output came in printed form and shared printing was standard. Sadly, a lot of those old computer manuals and magazines describing banner practice and styles are offline. Nonetheless, production of banner pages are part of most print spooler protocols, e.g., in Unix and in Windows. Banner pages are also described in books [1], [2] and in standards documents like RFC1179. I don't know if these sources are enough for a standalone article, but they are more than enough for a section in print spooler. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M, merging of verifiable information is preferred over deletion, so merge to print spooler is recommended. --Mark viking (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to print spooler (thank you for the suggestion) where the content would fit in rather well. Likely search term. The nomination is completely inapposite and the "delete" !vote above seems to be favouring a merge. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2013 (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.