Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon EOS 300

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. There is no consensus to delete this article. While there may be reason to merge, there is not sufficient consensus for a merger to close this AfD with that result. Arguments to merge are arguments to keep, albeit in a different article. If that outcome is still desire subsequent revision and sourcing, merger can, of course, be proposed and carried out as per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 300[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot cameras to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are several other poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable commercial product for which a lot of sources exist. Nomination is a boilerplate nomination showing no consideration of the merits of the specific article. This is probably more suited to merging than some; the consumer grade cameras are generally much less interesting, and quality sources that do more than list the specifications are harder to find. I would oppose strongly merging camera articles as a general case, especially for professional grade equipment. For an example of the treatment that is possible, see the featured article Canon T90. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By all means, please add some of these numerous claimed sources to the article or at least point them out here. Pro forma reprints of press releases and manufacturer's websites do not count for much. Edison (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—notable as it's the subject of multiple independent sources (including one book), as can be seen from the article. This was Canon's consumer-level SLR for a number of years, and was a best-selling camera at the time. Also, article is now referenced. Spacepotato (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article text has now been 100% rewritten (only remaining is infobox and images) and is referenced. This is a quite substantially different article now than when nominated. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 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.