Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lexmark products

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 Keep. WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't apply, as there is not pricing information, list do not exist for navigational purposes (cats and navboxes do). There are major sourcing and quality issues with this article, but there is not sufficient reason to delete, in the view that community consensus has supported the existence of this type of article in the past Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lexmark products[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed Them From Space 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

similar "list of products" exist for IBM, HP, and canon. As I understand that wikipedia is not list of everything that exist. I believe that lists of tech products (if included data for comparison) is useful.--Meirpolaris (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous product lists on Wikipedia (e.g. List of AMD microprocessors, List of Toyota vehicles) and WP:NOTDIR does not preclude lists of products. In the absence of any valid delete rationale I am voting keep. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of those cars are independantly notable, so that list acts as a navigational aid. None of these products are independently notable. Therefore the article functions as a catalog of products, and nothing more. With the Toyota article there is an overlap between the functions of an encyclopedia and a catalog, but since none of these products are notable there is no element of an encyclopedia article here, it is only a catalog. Them From Space 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your statement that "none of these products are independently notable". Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it already, doesn't mean it shouldn't, or that it's not notable. For example, I took at random the Pinnacle Pro901, and found significant coverage in reliable sources ([1],[2],[3]) In the absence of articles on individual notable products, this list serves an encyclopaedic purpose. With regard to catalogs, WP:NOTDIR excludes only "sales catalogs" featuring prices. A "catalog" is merely a systematic list, and Wikipedia has plenty of those. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well accepted article type--and it serves very well to keep trivial separate articles out of Wikipedia, and thus makes the encyclopedia itself less like a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What a stupid AfD. 86.145.142.142 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same might be said about your cheap shot at the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There goes Ritzman as the closer here... Carrite (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my "cheap shot" at the "cheap shotter", I'll consider myself too WP:INVOLVED to close this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a product catalogue. The article is a list and the entries have not annotations so it erves very little purpose. It is also very SPAMmy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG is all about sales catalogues and not including prices in lists such as this. It doesn't preclude lists of products. It would be great if the article were improved to include some detail about each product, but that is not a reason to delete. Lastly, how is this "SPAMmy"? I don't see any promotional content so are you suggesting that lists of products do not belong on Wikipedia because they are invariably promotional? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with it except that it's the list equivalent of a stub, which could use a sortable list format with multiple fields. I seriously doubt any of these printers are non-notable by WP standards - pick up one of the countless computer magazines at your local newsagent and you'll see plenty of reviews for peripherals like these. Online examples: [4], [5], [6] etc. ad nauseum. There is no pricing information so the not/catalogue point is not relevant. Someone another 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as commercial spam. This does not serve a valid navigational function. It is a list of products that a company makes that they would be happy for you to buy. Wikipedia is not the Universal Registry of Product Models. Carrite (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Lexmark catalog. The other examples given (cars and CPU's) are not similar; they are individually notable and interesting. It would be a bottomless pit to start allowing articles which are basically just catalogs for manufacturers/distributors. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a lexmark catalog, which would be considerably more detailed. Its an overly concise partial summary of the current products of a major company, and immensely preferable to having articles on every one of them. What is needed is work on the article to indicate what the products actually are, and their significance, along with sourcing to reviews and the like. And, additionally, coverage of earlier products,which would certainly makethe article more encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list isn't concise at all; on the contrary its rather exhaustive, showing most of the current product line. It still contains no sources or any material that demonstrates why the list itself has encyclopedic significance (has the Lexmark catalog affected the world significantly? If not, why should we have a distinctive article detailing it? If so, this needs to be evidenced in the article). The proper encyclopedic summary of this material is already found at Lexmark#Products. Them From Space 22:24, 7 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.