Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Print&Share

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. The sources offered here do not meet WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article advertising a non-notable products. All URLs given as sources are either primary or clearly have a vested interest. (As a side note, the article for the parent company of this product is also nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winking (company).) Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep this page. I don't see why a popular product being used in the majority of the world would needs to be deleted. The reason as you state that all urls given as sources are primary or have a vested interest is not true. BLI Byers lab is an independent test laboratory. Africa Print is a leading independent magazine. mynewsdesk is not affiliated. Data Manager Online is not affiliated and is an independent ict news magazine. solutions-magazine is an independent website, not affiliated. Of course the websites that write about this product are in the ICT business. About the side note, if you have checked all the articles nominated for deletion by user Rentier who marked the page for deletion, you will see that he seems to mark only software related products (tenfold, opusmodus, sifter, wordpress mp, ...). I start to having a feeling that he does this on purpose...) JuFo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and had another look at the sources that you claim are independent and prove notability, buyer's lab is not coverage just a statement that the product has been tested by their lab as have many thousands of products, had it won an award from BLI this would have helped...but it didn't. The africaprint article is a press release and not suitable as a source to prove GNG. Mynewsdesk is also a press release, as is data manager online. None of these count towards proving notability. Solutions magazine is a deadlink but judging from the title it looks exactly like a reprint of this page with the same title on the Ricoh website [1]. Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as per nom all sources are primary or affiliated. Domdeparis (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree above. No source makes it seem notable. RyanRO34 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 3:52, 14 November 2017 (GMT) — RyanRO34 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of StandAtlanticFans (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete side notes insinuating the nomination is somehow worse because the nominator focuses on a particular type of article is discouraged per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. I agree that this article fails WP:GNG, and can't see any good reason to keep it. Dysklyver 13:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Actually, there is a purpose to the sidenote other than "common outcomes": The article was mistakenly tagged with an AfD tag, I assume because of edit conflict or a revert-backed dispute. I just wanted to prove that I already know about the other AfD, so as to avoid a premature closure, plus a trout, plus being branded as a complete idiot. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

( OMG ). I was referring to JuFo's side note ! About the side note, if you have checked all the articles nominated for deletion by user Rentier who marked the page for deletion, you will see that he seems to mark only software related products (tenfold, opusmodus, sifter, wordpress mp, ...). I start to having a feeling that he does this on purpose...), - arguing against the motives of the nominator is discouraged per commonoutcomes. Nothing wrong with your actual sidenote, sorry I didn't make that clear enough. Dysklyver 13:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect, should the article about the parent company stay) - per my original rationale for redirecting: lack of independent notability. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORPDEPTH are met. With regards to JuFo's remark, I have been in fact purposefully reviewing software-related articles, a large portion of which turns out to be unsuitable for inclusion. Rentier (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your remark Rentier, but there are pages which have far less information, resources, etc... and these pages come away with it by adding a "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.". Maybe by adding a stub you can encourage others to add more information instead of deleting information. And about moving this to the parent company. I'm not sure who owns the rights about this product. It's creator, or its distributor, or both. That's a tricky one if you want to move it. This is why I would suggest to keep it. This product is as widely uses as Foxit Reader and that page contains less information and is also a separate page.JuFo (talk)

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.