Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full-frame digital SLR

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:22Z

Full-frame digital SLR

Article is a neologism - the term full frame digital SLR is derived from marketing and subject to many competing definitions, and not able to be attributed in reliable academic literature Hmette 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sounds like it should be a disambiguation page, then? Seems like a potential search term that should be pointed somewhere useful; if it's a badly-defined term that shows up in marketing literature, people would probably search for it on the internet trying to figure out exactly what it means. cab 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recently did a lot of work on it, replacing speculative and nonstandard meanings with the ones supported by reliable sources. The main meaning and the related variants are covered, each supported by two good book references. If you had proposed deletion a few weeks ago I would have understood. By why now? And as neologisms go, this is a pretty old one, if you leave out the word 'digital'. Should we retitle and re-arrange it accordingly? I see part of the problem may be your concept that you had put into the article earlier that "The term is the subject of considerable debate and not capable of conclusive definition." I don't see it this way at all; I didn't find books that talked about debate, and there didn't seem to be any uncertainty of definition. The fact that some DSLR users have wanted to apply the term to their cameras, extending the definition, should not be relevant here unless we find a reliable source about that. Dicklyon 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I did propose deletion some weeks ago, after attempting to find reliable definitions. The definitions found were principally actually linking to wiki itself. The comments in reply were essentially that "wiki is a neologism". I don't see it that way. The references appear to be recent "how to" books on photography, not really reliable secondary sources. The are articles that use the term, not about the term. So far I haven't seen any reliable secondary source material. The problem isn't that its a term that is used within the photographic community - that isn't enough to justify its inclusion in wikipedia, the problem is that it isn't used or defined consistently, and that definitions are not in reliable secondary sources, as required by wiki's policies.--Hmette 05:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an issue. But so many books use the term full-frame in this sense, in a way that implies an accepted definition, that it seems to be a notable topic. As you've noticed, the wikipedia/google cycle makes it very hard to find good sources on web pages by googling; that's why I mostly use google book search to look for reliable sources. Now that we have an article on image sensor format, however, maybe it would be better to move much of the content there, and to make a full frame (disambiguation) page to dispatch to there or to the film format or the CCD article as appropriate. Sounds like a next proposal to try out after we survive the AfD. Dicklyon 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be quite blunt, I don't really see a problem with the article as it stands now. As far as neologism goes, even I have heard and used the term and I'm just a hobbyist. Seed 2.0 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version seems reasonably well sourced and NPOV. Well sourced notable neologisims are perfectly appropriate. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term has been used ever since the cameras were first built, to distinguish these very expensive cameras from the ordinary digital SLRs. I seem to have heard there are now additional brands and models not listed in the article. DGG 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is in common use. Article seems fine. Fg2 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Almost half a million Google hits; If this is a neologism then so are >90% of the other technical terms on which we currently have articles. Andrewa 09:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only 24,600 google hits for the rather too specific title, but that's not how things are decided. Personally, I'm leaning toward the disambig idea that I mentioned above; what do you think? Dicklyon 15:58, 7 April 2007 (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.