Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hewlett-Packard 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 the list and delete the independent product pages. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Hewlett-Packard products

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

HPcruft, listcruft; unencyclopedaic. Yes, HP is a great company, but we don't need to list their products in microscopic detail. I will also be nominating some of the less notable product pages as part of this AFD. Brianyoumans 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also included HP LaserJet 1300, HP LaserJet 4250, HP LaserJet 4350, HP LaserJet 5200, HP Photosmart 2610, HP Officejet 6110, HP Officejet 6210, HP Officejet 7110, HP Officejet 7310, HP Officejet 7410, HP Designjet 5500, HP Designjet 70, HP Deskjet D4160, HP Deskjet 3930, HP Deskjet 5650, HP Photosmart 320, HP Scanjet 5550c, and HP Pavilion dv6000t --Brianyoumans 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that (a) As far as I can see, none of the above product pages asserts any notability (b) most of them read like copyvios of the HP website, which they may be (c) even those that aren't, are basically just statements of the technical specs of the printer (or scanner or camera or computer) and its present state of availability. --Brianyoumans 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the list, delete the others. I read through some of the articles and agreed with the nominator's assessment. Then, for comparison, I wanted to see how competitors of HP had their products listed.  Sure enough, List of Canon products is long and full of cruft and redlinks, but it's not as bad as the HP list.  Although inclusion is not an indicator of notability, I'm willing to keep the list itself, provided that the redlinks be cut down. YechielMan 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So where did the idea come from that we needed lists of any company's products? Isn't that what the company's website is for? Notable products is another matter, but how many of these products are actually significant in some way? Obviously, someone needs to AFD some of the Canon product articles as well. --Brianyoumans 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep list, aggressively prune product articles. Not every company's products need a list, but HP is a major manufacturer with thousands of products, a fair number of which have articles. There's a basic utility argument here per WP:LIST. As for the product articles, we don't need them on every model; that's like having articles like Ford Taurus 2007½. But we do have Ford Taurus, so why not HP LaserJet; and arguably even HP LaserJet II deserves its own as a standard-setting product that dominated corporate offices for roughly a decade . The DeskJet certainly deserves a family article, the ScanJet, though I'm less certain the others are individually notable products. The Pavilion is now a longstanding HP brand of PC. But yes, individual product editions down to four numbers is something we can never keep up with. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these articles are about lines of products or make any attempt to discuss market impact, social/cultural value, etc. - they give the specs, what product it replaced, what toner it uses. I agree that an article on "HP LaserJet" would be notable... but none of these articles attempt to do that.  If you look at HP Pavilion dv6000t, it is about only that particular model.--Brianyoumans 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see your objection? I offered up a "should be" state. By inference, I don't like the "as is". --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the difference between "aggressive pruning" and "slay them all!" I don't think any of the ones that I AFDed contain much useful info towards the general articles that we both think would be useful. And I think that "aggressive pruning" is not something that a closing admin is going to adopt; they generally want a clearer directive. AND, the next comment below is someone who "seconded" your "pruning" comment - but they seem to have a bias towards retaining articles, not deleting them. --Brianyoumans 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pruned list, as per Dhartung. A product list or an article about a single product may be valuable if it contains not (just) the details given by the producer, but information about past products, products for different countries, criticism etc., as is partially the case for McDonald's menu items. --Goochelaar 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge product articles to main articles HP LaserJet, HP DeskJet, etc. Delete the list, replacing with links to the main product line pages from JulesH 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see any value in providing a list of a company's products. HP may be a large company, but that in itself does not warrant a list such as this '' •C H ILL DO UBT•     15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep list and cleanup (e.g., replace redlinks with regular black-white text). Merge the individual product articles into HP LaserJet, HP DeskJet, etc. and then delete.  Black Falcon 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleanup Keep the list. It's not a problem to list HP products, any more than it is to list Ford or General Motors ones.  I do agree that most of the models don't warrant articles, but they should at least be redirects to the product line itself.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with people that articles on the various product lines might be good - company history, technological history, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think that merging, say, the five Officejet articles together will get you an Officejet overview - these articles are just sets of technical specs, basically. I still advise just throwing out all these "model" articles and starting over. For what it is worth, there already seems to be a Laserjet article; the other lines don't seem to have articles yet. --Brianyoumans 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, no, but a redirect will serve just as well, and I don't see a need to delete the history. FrozenPurpleCube 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge into HP. This is more of a template box than an article, but it's not a big deal keeping it around to me. Just H 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is WP(encyclopedia) and not sales cataloque. --MaNeMeBasat 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete individual models. Individual models are not usually notable, the stubs are unencyclopaedic and will probably stay stubs forever. Models are usually only minor variants in terms of configuration or function. Furthermore, they may be problematical as they are often have life cycles of less than 12 months, are given different names in different markets, thus giving rise to an unmaintainable proliferation. A valid article could be created around a product or product line. Ohconfucius 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Important company and the products are well knownSlideAndSlip 21:33, 13 February 2007 (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.