Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon EOS 5/A2/A2e

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 5/A2/A2e[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Reads as an advertisement; Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Wikipedia is not a camera guide. Almost completely unreferenced -- after removing what's referenced or how-to, we've got nothing left. Insufficient third-party references exist to make an article that's anything more than a review or an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the AfD3 template is incompatible with article names that have strokes in them. I've tried to work around the problem by manually editing the post-substituted wiki markup on this page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to an overall list as with the recent camera discussions. There really needs to be some consensus over camera/cell phone, etc. notability or lackthereof. Travellingcari (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like there are quite a lot of articles like this, judging by the template at the bottom of the page. Just how many camera articles are there on Wiki? I too am inclined to think we may need a clearer policy about products, because I too think we should not be acting like a catalogue but at the same time it would seem unfair to pick on this particular article if there are many others. If this one goes, IMO so should they all. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Many such articles have already been deleted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a specialist encyclopedia as well as a generalist one. An encyclopedia of photographic equipment would certainly contain this. This product was notable for both technical innovation and commercial success. Furthermore, it should be becoming clearer to Mikeblas that his opinions on Wikipedia inclusion are not shared. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, they are shared; many advertisements for commercial products have been deleted or merged. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine article. Just needs more sources which exist. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 22 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. Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 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.