- 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 per WP:SNOW. It is obvious there is not going to be a consensus to delete this article. The only delete supporter is now advocating merge, which counts as keep and can be debated on the article talk page, though it should be noted it is a minority position. The reason given by the nominator has now been met with the addition of text to the article. Tyrenius (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is nothing more than a repository and is therefore a violation of the policy WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. nat.utoronto 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. There really should be an article about this subject here, but it should be a lot better than this.--Michig (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've spent a few minutes adding some references to the article. I would strongly recommend that efforts are made to improve articles on encyclopedic subjects before nominating them to be deleted.--Michig (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, FWIW. As the talk page indicates the one who started this push for deletion — Landcamera900 — is dead set against expansion. I can't explain how Nat, an admin, seems to agree that this article is better off deleted... Cburnett (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not dead set against expansion, you made it clear that if I (the new guy) did not fix the page it would not change. This article as it was when nominated for deletion was a sloppy mess of text and photos, some of those photos by the way were taken by you. you arent supposed to add photos hoping they will be relevant someday, you add them to improve the quality of an article.Landcamera900 (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how adding photos to an article is not improving its quality. We accept text that isn't perfect in the hope that it will be improved eventually, so I have no idea why we wouldn't accept images. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding photos does improve articals thats what I said, but they should not be added until they are relevant, you cant use images to improve an article if there is not an article to improve.Landcamera900 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how adding photos to an article is not improving its quality. We accept text that isn't perfect in the hope that it will be improved eventually, so I have no idea why we wouldn't accept images. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not dead set against expansion, you made it clear that if I (the new guy) did not fix the page it would not change. This article as it was when nominated for deletion was a sloppy mess of text and photos, some of those photos by the way were taken by you. you arent supposed to add photos hoping they will be relevant someday, you add them to improve the quality of an article.Landcamera900 (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, FWIW. As the talk page indicates the one who started this push for deletion — Landcamera900 — is dead set against expansion. I can't explain how Nat, an admin, seems to agree that this article is better off deleted... Cburnett (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This "article" is a blurb and photos. I agree with the deletion nomination. None of the editors have expressed intrest in fixing it. Insted a better land camera section could be added to the "instant camera" article Landcamera900 (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your name just happens to be landcamera? May I ask when this account was created? Nick mallory (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yesterday. The fact that he's using the same rationale as the nominator here seems a little suspect... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you accusing me of being a sock? nat.utoronto 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t appreciate your accusations, and they are completely untrue I have no malicious intent I thought I heard something about good faith on this siteLandcamera900 (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey now, I didn't say you were a sock, all I said was that it was suspicious that two different users are fighting to have the same article deleted and using the same rationale word for word. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thats because it's a good rationale, I'm suprised this "article" lasted as long as it did, without detection.Landcamera900 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not expected that every article be perfect from the get-go (that would be impossible) nor that every article receives as much attention and focus as popular articles (pick anything from Harry Potter, abortion, GHW Bush, etc.). Cburnett (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thats because it's a good rationale, I'm suprised this "article" lasted as long as it did, without detection.Landcamera900 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Landcamera900, we do assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise questions about violations of policy. Nobody has yet blocked you, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thats because I haven't done anything wrong.Landcamera900 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey now, I didn't say you were a sock, all I said was that it was suspicious that two different users are fighting to have the same article deleted and using the same rationale word for word. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yesterday. The fact that he's using the same rationale as the nominator here seems a little suspect... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a short article, with cited sources, that is ready for expansion. The word for that is "stub", and per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy we don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion. Per our Wikipedia:Editing policy we don't require that articles be complete and perfect ab initio. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your name just happens to be landcamera? May I ask when this account was created? Nick mallory (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. May need cleaning up and expanding, but appears to be a notable subject. --DAJF (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Uncle G here, this page is a stub and can be expanded. Deletion is not always the answer; this is a clearly notable subject and is decently sourced. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was the first instant camera so it's obviously a notable topic. Uncle G et all are right, AfD is not for cleanup. Nick mallory (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Land camera is not a model. It is just a polaroid camera branded with Edwin Lands name, all polaroids were land cameras untill the 80's Landcamera900 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But not all Land cameras were Polaroids. The Hewlett-Packard 196B, manufactured in 1962, wasn't. (ISBN 0240807405, page 309) Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Land camera is not a model. It is just a polaroid camera branded with Edwin Lands name, all polaroids were land cameras untill the 80's Landcamera900 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep It is obviously an article not a repository. Proposer doesn't seem to understand the policy in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as it obviously is an issue of needing expansion and deletion is by far the absolute worst answer to achieve that. Considering the work done in the last 12 hours, I don't think there could be a clearly indication that there are verifiable sources out there and that expansion can readily be done. Deletion is absurd and would clearly be a detriment to wikipedia. Cburnett (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually given all the recent work I'm starting think a merger might actually be better, my main issue was with all the images on the page. And if they are removed and the pages merged it would result in a more satifactory "instant camera" article.Landcamera900 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge (and I prefer "keep"). Also, keep the images -- they add useful information about different models. --A. B. (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree they clutter the page and make it look unprofessional, a single photo of each type of camera next to it's corresponding paragraph would be more effective, and attractiveLandcamera900 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable, too:
- Google Scholar: 58 mentions for "Land Camera" + "Edwin Land" -- some are patents and others passing mentions, but there's still substantive stuff to establish notability. --A. B. (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 90+ hits in the New York Times' archives. (I have a subscription; if someone wants a copy of an article, let me know.) --A. B. (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per several above. No proper reason to delete given - nominator seems to misunderstand policy on galleries, though obviously the article needs expanding. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep subject itself is highly notable even though the current page is indeed mostly a gallery. JJL (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs improvement but no possible reason for deletion that I can see. Article should explain how Polaroid's use of the brand name evolved. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 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.