Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP 520


 * 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 HP Deskjet. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

HP 520

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to HP Deskjet. According to my brief research, the previous HP 500 model may deserve an article and the 520 could be mentioned there. ex. source for the 500's notability If someone is knowledgable, please weigh about this MadCow257 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * merge as suggested above. Reviews could probab ly be found to establish this as notable, but it is not a good practivce to have articles on each individual model.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP 520 as "speedy close". Cunard (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Delete the junk. This is unreferenced, barely three sentences long and the notable claims it does make are wrong anyway. The DeskJet is obviously notable, but the DJ+ and the DJ 500 were mere derivatives of this. By the time of the DJ 520 the technology was well established and the 520 itself did not advance this in any significant or notable manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to HP Deskjet --Kvng (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LES 953 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (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.