Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elikon-35CM

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 delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. We don't have articles on everything - our inclusion crieria is that something needs to be "notable". That there is no information available is why we delete articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elikon-35CM

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable product. The article states "It is difficult to find redeeming qualities in this camera." This about sums up the reason for the AfD! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when has something needed to be 'notable' to be included in an encyclopedia? Half of Wikipedia would disappear, if that was a criteria...

Even if so - there has still been made about 128.000 of these rather poor cameras, and there is hardly any information on the Internet about them. So where else are people going to find data? Anybody unhappy with the contents? Feel free to edit! :) Kim_Pirat (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP has notability guidelines to restrict the articles to a certain subset of "the sum of human knowledge" to make the project more managable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alan Liefting. Just because there seems to be few/no other internet-based sources of info on this product doesn't mean that WP has to carry a torch for it. Product is of questionable notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this entry level camera in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looks like i'm a minority here... May i please explain?

I collect cameras, and for me, this camera is interesting. Not for extraordinary craftmanship, interesting production, technological achievements etc., but for the extraordinary... plainness.
Most people did (and do) not have Leica's, Hasselblad, Contax' and other wonderful cameras. The blurred pics from somebody's vacation, the newborn baby, the long-dead grandma... most ordinary people's "Kodak moment" has happened with plain, unassuming and poor cameras. The pictures have been badly exposed, and rarely very artful. But it is these plain, ignored cameras, that filled most people's photo albums.
Yes, they are not interesting. Yes, it is difficult to find reliable information. And yes, this is exactly the same problem if we want to find out how ordinary people lived, worked and died in medievil days. It is completely documented to the smallest detail how the noblesse were doing, but find info on the guy tending the stables? Impossible.
That is why i find this cheap, old, USSR P.O.S. interesting. And i don't know where else to preserve the poor scraps of information about it.
'Interesting' is very much in the eye of the beholder. I find that the endless list of ancient hymns, as well as Every Air Crash In The World, that some people write about (and that regularely decorate the front page) deeply uninteresting. But i will not suggest any of that for deletion, no matter how boring i find it, because i know that for somebody else, this is the most interesting thing in the world...
I better shut up now. I've said more than my part. Thanks for reading, and God bless y'all! Kim_Pirat (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - If your concern is keeping this information somewhere, there are lots of alternatives to Wikipedia. There are a multitude of places to create a free web site. There is also Wikia where somebody has created Camerapedia which sounds like a spot that you may want to consider. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably meets WP:GNG. I've added a couple of refs, and suspect there are further ones available offline. -- Trevj (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (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.