Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page printer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page_printer

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is little more than a dictionary definition and has no promise of expansion.--Wikiwriter706 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If deleted, I suggest it redirect to Computer printer.--Wikiwriter706 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Maybe the article would be best reverted to its pre-AfD state [1] and then transwikied to wiktionary.--Wikiwriter706 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If it was a little longer, it might warrant a merge. Tokakeke 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Almost every consumer printer is a page printer. There is no reason to make this distinction. --Valermos 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think the subject may merit an article. For example, modern page printers need to be able to hold at least one page's worth of data in memory, which means they must come equipped with RAM, unlike, say, an older daisy wheel or inkjet printer where the paper is fed through by "teeth" (although many of these models, of course, do have memory). How did the older, huge, floor-standing page printers work? Frankly, I don't know. I don't really want to write it, but I think there's an article here. --Hyperbole 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Old line printers printed an entire line at a time and so had a buffer that was as big as a single line (e.g., 80 or 132 bytes). They weren't "page printers". Page printers really only arrived on the scene with the arrival of Xerographic techniques ("laser printers", more-or-less).
Atlant 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge with Teletype. As Hyperbole notes, there might be a good article here struggling to get out, and it would make a nice bridge between Teletype and Computer printer. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Clairification, because there seems to be some confusion here. There seems to be a difference between a "page printer" in the teletype context and a "page printer" in the computer printer context. I was assuming this article was about teletype printers because when I looked at it, it refered to the Morton & Krum teletype patent and had references to teletype articles. Teletype printers of course were the ancestors of computer printers. So my assumption was that the article would be about the interesting if somewhat obscure topic of teletype page printers. Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to computer printer or another relevant article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is completely disjointed. It originally was an article about laser and inkjet printers which wait for an entire page to be rendered before printing. Then someone added a bunch of teletype stuff which is a complete contradiction in terms as teletype machines print every character as it is recieved, and the used rolls of paper instead of sheets of paper. Bige1977 05:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above - a mess and unnecessary. Eusebeus 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Based on arguments given by those in favour of the deep six, it is rather apparent that some of them never even bothered to read the content of the cited references. Folajimi 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that there were no cited references when the article was nominated and that they have all been added during the course of this debate. The comments made by people who "never even bothered to read the content of the cited references" were probably made before there were such references. Major additions have been made to the article.
    • P.S. To those who glibly remark that the entry is "a mess", you should read up on the deletion policy for Wikipedia. According to that document, your argument is baseless. (Then again, such users contribute little or nothing in the way of original content to the project, but are always at the ready to condemn/destroy other people's work...) Folajimi 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • With your addition of teletype material, the article now states that computer page printers were invented circa 1900, and patented in 1924. Considering that electronic computers weren't even in existance at the time makes the whole article is now very confusing. The teletype information belongs in Teleprinter. Bige1977 18:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You make a valid point regarding the "computer printer" terminology. Considering that the printer in question was intended for use with telegraph equipment, the term should be de-linked, and the 'computer' prefix should be dropped.
As for the teletype information, notice that they are included under "References" — this means that the information used in the article was drawn from those sources. From what I gather, it is good practice to cite sources used in the construction of articles; if for no other reason than to avoid charges of plagiarism. Sources used in the entry are chosen based on content, not titles. Folajimi 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article is a whole mess. --Terence Ong 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP I agree that this this has the potential to become a useful article. many great articles start out as stubs...lets let the wiki work.
now that the specific teletype meaning has been clarified, any slight doubts I may have had are gone. And now, knowing that this is really not about computer printers, it seems pretty much impossible to make a case for merging. Interestingstuffadder 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingstuffadder 14:17, 21 April 2006 (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.