Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epson ink cartridge controversy


 * 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Epson ink cartridge controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not assume a neutral point of view, and is largely composed of original research. The purpose of the article appears to be to campaign against the Seiko Epson Corporation. Notability not established. Ringbang (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete, axe-grinding over something with minimal coverage. (WP:SYN) WillOakland (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a soap box article; no notable 'controversy' appears to exist. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this topic does merit an article, it appears to primarily attack Epson in spite of the fact that it's an issue that also pertains to other companies (Lexmark, HP, others) that have been well-known participate in the same type of behavior. Lexmark has been involved in a number of legal cases regarding similar issues, such as ACRA v. Lexmark as well as another case where a third-party ink cartridge manufacturer was sued for copying "copyrighted" code onto microchips needed to make refilled ink cartridges work. I would suggest that either the article would be drastically rewritten and criticize *all* printer companies, or (more likely) simply add a brief section to the Seiko Epson article regarding this issue...in a similar fashion to what is done at the Lexmark article. Scootey (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: This is an obvious attack on the Epson brand. It isn't needed. If you want, you could just add this as a section in the article relating to the company itself, even though I don't think that is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonrox24 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete that printers are an example of so-called "Freebie marketing" has generated news coverage and may be notable, but that this particular company does it isn't notable. JJL (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a hatchet job of a coatrack. It has no encyclopedic purpose and very little real content.  Bearian (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Smerge the verifiable material to Seiko Epson. The rest of it is obvious synthesis. MuZemike 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a neutral POV, soapboxy, and not all the information is verifiable. Tavix | Talk  02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This ridiculous complain (or criticism) against Epson was originally in Seiko Epson. I deleted the nonsense from Seiko Epson and created this article to avoid an edit war. I think it's time to delete.--Krtek2125 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think the above comment says it all: if the original author says it should be deleted, then it should be. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  08:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The section involving the retracted boycott by the Dutch Consumer Association and the American class-action lawsuit seemed sourced and NPOV, unlike the rest of the article. If the controversy is notable, I hope that those things will be mentioned in Seiko Epson. BecauseWhy? (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.