Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympus PEN E-PM1

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus PEN E-PM1[edit]

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

I successfully PRODed this article in January 2012 on general notability grounds. An editor requested restoration and the article was restored from deletion today. I will go ahead and nominate for deletion, again on notability grounds. Article is unsourced and a Google search doesn't give me anything that sets this camera apart from the crowd for notability. Additionally the article clearly violates WP:NPOV and reads very much as praise and almost as an advertisement. The comment that led to the article restoration is here Talk:Olympus PEN E-PM1 as well as my response to that comment. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, and reads almost like an advertisement. I couldn't find any reliable sources, either. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although people may have been confused by the variety of different names applied to this camera, there's no shortage of reliable sources in print and online[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Since there are no specific notability guidelines for cameras or products, WP:GNG applies, which is met. Having said that, the current article is poor: unreferenced, lacking in hard information or 3rd-party coverage, full of vague unsupported assertions, inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedia, and close to advertising, so it would have to be almost entirely rewritten. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable product (or group of products)and it is informative not promotional. I agree with Colape nisula that it is in need of major rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a bit of rewriting, foregrounding expert reviews as per WP:SNOWFLAKE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good enough after improvements. Merging the whole series of cameras into one article might be best. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2013 (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.