Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P72

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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P72[edit]

Contested prod. Original reason: Advertisement for non-notable product. – Gurch 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on the Cyber-shot line if it exists. If not, delete. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. People need to stop labeling every non-notable thing that can be sold as "spam". This clearly is not an advertisement. If notability is an issue, it can be merged per TrackerTV. hateless 03:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The Cyber-shot article contains links (~~mostly~~ many of which are red) to pages for a lot (maybe all) of the Cyber-shot models. Should all these models have their own pages, or should the per-model articles that exist be merged? Erik Swanson 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One answer: individual articles on that many different models within a single range would be very cumbersome for readers to use. The range of cameras is certainly worth documenting, but in my opinion it would be more useful to have a single article that described the development of the range and its features in continuous prose, rather than trying to create individual articles on every single model with no real context for any of them. Therefore, I would say that the redlinks should be removed, the existing articles all merged into the parent article, and the article this produces should then be expanded and refactored to describe the entire range. — Haeleth Talk 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the Sony Cybershot article. I don't see how this article could be seen as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into the main Cybershot article if it exists, doesn't need its own article but isn't an ad. Seraphimblade 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists. It's apparently out of production too, so advertising it would be a bit pointless. JIP | Talk 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was a bit unclear now that I look! I meant if the Cybershot article exists, I was relatively sure that the camcorder did. Seraphimblade 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -Merge with Sony Cybershot article.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ruarua 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obsolete and non-notable camera, and the article adds nothing. Maybe deserves one line in a list of Sony products. Pete Fenelon 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information in Wikipedia either by keeping or merging with an article on the series of cameras. The development of a line of cameras over time is certainly interesting, especially in the opening decade of digital photography. An article on a three-year-old digital camera is certainly not spam or advertising. Fg2 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fg2 and my "One answer" post above. The development of a line of cameras is indeed interesting, but it is best described in a single homogenous article, not split into potentially dozens of separate fragments on individual models.
Consider the hypothetical case where an innovative new feature was introduced in three models released simultaneously. With a single article, this is straightforward to explain: the new feature is described in the appropriate section, and the models that introduced it are identified. With multiple articles, the new feature must be described redundantly in three separate places, creating a maintenance nightmare and a tangled web of articles that will confuse most readers. — Haeleth Talk 12:41, 25 November 2006 (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.