Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaserWriter Pro 810

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 LaserWriter. Courcelles 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LaserWriter Pro 810

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some editors seem to want Wikipedia to be a mirror of the websites of every company which makes or made high tech gadgets, and have created countless unreferenced stubs. No indication this gadget satisfies WP:N. If every Apple gadget which satisfies WP:V needs a standalone article, then so does every single model of typewriter, telephone, or adding machine ever offered for sale, since they served some of the same functions as celphones, printers or comparable current tech gadgets, or every single model of any notable company's products. Only the notable innovative and groundbreaking ones need standalone articles. Edison (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no one person is likely to propose "every model"--though it would be justified to propose every significant model,based on reviews. --your argument says nothinghereabout the possibility of a merge by product line. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 17 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. By my definition, a "gadget" is something like an adapter or a charger or a stand,; dismissive language like that taints a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just inserted a mention of it into Laserwriter so you can consider it merged. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Apple printers --Kvng (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If merge is an option, why don't you try that first. AfD should not be your first move. It turns out the same information in this article is already in the [[LaserWriter] article. I've created an anchor in the LaserWriter article where we can redirect. I assume it would be uncool to do the redirect before the AfD has completed. --Kvng (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. I'm preparing the space. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the MOS on multiple infoboxes in the same article? IMHO, these infoboxes serve a useful place for detail and help the reader to distinguish between types. Ideally the infobox should occupy the space next to the subject, but most of this content is too brief at this time (though expansion would easy, but time-consuming). Can infoboxes be set up gallery-style? BusterD (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge target should be LaserWriter 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 LaserWriter, 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) 21:36, 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.