- 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 - Philippe | Talk 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Canon EOS-1v (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Wikipedia is not a camera guide. Completely unreferenced, written like a marketing brochure, including grandiose "all needs" assertions. Mikeblas (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia isn't just a general encyclopedia, but a specialized encyclopedia too. An encyclopedia of photographic equipment would certainly contain this, which is almost certainly Canon's last professional film camera and groundbreaking in a number of respects. I agree that the current article is pretty crap and nowhere near the standard we could have, and should not be written like a marketing brochure. For proof that an article on a camera model can be much better than this, see Canon T90, which is a featured article (yes, I wrote most of it, but that's not really the point). Extensive sources exist to make this a much better article, including reviews, news articles in the photographic press, in-depth analyses of its performance, etc. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable product, widely-reviewed when it came out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a camera directory, reviewed when it came out!notable Travellingcari (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Matthew Brown (Morven), or possibly Merge. Some guideline for cameras should probably be created to examine the most notable breakthroughs but then simply mention the other releases in some minor way. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, having individual articles makes sense for most of these; the information including photo and specifications would be rather unwieldy in a list form. I'd agree with listifying most compact digital cameras, for instance, because there are so many, sources for more than stats are hard to find, and they never get much serious attention in the photographic press. SLR cameras, however, can generally have about five paragraphs of sourced useful info written about them, and I think that's sufficient for an article. Remember, also, that camera equipment fans definitely find these things "notable" enough, just as automobile fans do (I haven't noticed anyone wanting to get rid of articles on automobile models). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valid subject for an encyclopedia. Every camera model from the major makers (and many from the minors) is reviewed in the various magazines. They all merit articles. Companies make far too many models to put them all in one article. Features vary too widely for any table or list. Fg2 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.