Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo-quality printing


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Photo-quality printing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I PRODed this article but another editor disagreed. The reasons for deletion are: “photo-quality printing’ is a descriptive advertising term and not the name of a recognised process. The article is essay-like original research and the talk page shows that there have been major concerns about the reliability of the content since it was written in 2007. It has no sources and while sources could perhaps be found to support individual statements in the article (or to correct them), the topic as a whole is essentially as meaningless as ‘restaurant-quality cooking’ or ‘F1-quality driving.’ Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - No citations, but more importantly, no real reason to exist. So it's just printing that is a bit better than other printing? Like Mccapra said, this is an advertising term that isn't grounded in any technical definition and doesn't qualify as encyclopedic content. I was surprised to find the term in a scientific paper, but it's a paper published by Hewlett-Packard Laboratories and even there the term is only used to describe "print images that are comparable, in terms of image quality and image permanence, to the traditional prints produced on silver halide photographic paper". So it's not a function, it's not a technical process, it's just good printing.PraiseVivec (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially per nom. I'm not seeing anything here that can't be covered at existing articles on related topics; and I'm not seeing anything after a quick search suggesting this is a coherent topic distinct from existing articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 15 September 2019 (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.