Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDCAM

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 (non-admin closure), no consensus for redirect. Ruslik (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDCAM[edit]

This article is an exact copy of the HDCAM section in the Betacam article. As far as this editor knows, none of the other updates to the Betacam format have their own article, and this information belongs on that page anyway. Fishyfred (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Betacam. No need for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't know much about Betacam. Jhawkinson's logic seems good here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is somewhat of a stub now, and is expected to evolve; probably some of the detail should be removed from Betacam. Despite the historical connection, HDCAM is not considered a subset of Betacam and it doesn't make much logical sense to have its information only there. jhawkinson (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Betacam (which is what I had in mind, so I may have been wrong in proposing the article for outright deletion). I don't see this article evolving. It has been around in its current form for nearly a whole year and has barely changed at all. It doesn't even have 20 edits. Its content is very similar to the information given for other related formats on the Betacam page. As far as not being a subset of Betacam, I think having the same form factor as Betacam is an important enough connection to allow it exist on that page. One more thing about about evolution: I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but let me play crystal ball for a moment. HDCAM SR came out in 2003. I can't fathom a new physical tape format on the horizon for ANY reason. What can we add to this article? The concession I would make on a Keep vote is that if you remove some of the detail in the Betacam article to give HDCAM's article a reason to exist, you should do that and make new articles for DigiBeta, Beta SX, and MPEG IMX, which are all in the Betacam article. Fishyfred (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to treat Digibeta and Beta SX that way: as I understand it they are in fact considered a logical subset of "Betacam" in a way that HDCAM is not. Evolution is slow for this stuff because it is highly specialized. The number of people out there in the Internet who have even heard of HDCAM is pretty small, so it's not surprising that it doesn't get much editing by knowledgable people... jhawkinson (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, to give it a chance to evolve. Scog (talk) 10:13, 13 July 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.