Talk:Leica M Monochrom

Response from deletion proposal
This page has been proposed to be deleted by Qwyrxian on 16 May 2012 because of the following reasons:


 * "random camera, no assertion of notability, no sources other than the company product page. WP:NOTCATALOG."

This is not a random camera, this is a brand new camera in the Leica M series which is everything but random since they represent the highest top quality rangefinders made.

As of assertion of notability this seems to be the first black and white 35mm camera. (Even if it had nothing new it whould still be notable enoght since it is a camera from the Leica M series.) Even only a few days after the camera announcement google already has over 6 million results for "Leica M Monochrom".

As of other sources besides the company I have added a external link with a review of the camera.

OriumX (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the link you added appears to be a blog, which means its not a reliable source or valid external link. However, I'm willing to AGF for a while and see if you can produce reliable sources. Note that google searches do not count. Nor, for that matter, are product reviews necessarily sufficient, unless they appear in extremely high quality publications. You need to demonstrate that the camera is notable, not merely that it exists. But, like I said, I've removed the deletion proposal and just left a notability tag; hopefully in the next few weeks, someone can find something else relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I tire of "rules" that try to force editors wishing to build (non-controversial) content for our readers to tick boxes and jump hoops. It is inconceivable that WP not have an article on the first monochrome digital rangefinder camera. Apart from the company's website and the inevitable review sites, what sort of sources do you imagine are available for a product only a week old? Doctoral theses? Even if the article remains in its current neutral stub form, the infobox alone is a benefit to our readers. I support the removal of the "Notability" template. GFHandel &#9836; 23:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, there's no deletion discussion going on, so no need to !vote. But your position "tires" me. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. We're not here to just "benefit our readers." If we were, then we'd have, for example, a copy of every phone book that we could (so long as we didn't violate copyright), because surely that would benefit some readers, right? And we'd provide 2000 word plot summaries of every movie, because we'd want to capture every single detail, right? And maybe we should provide exact measurements of every single part inside of this camera, because I'm sure someone somewhere needs to know how to disassemble it right? But, no, of course, we don't do that, because we're an encyclopedia, not a directory or product guide or whatever other very valuable but different resource. Now, if this is, in fact, the first of its kind, then you should be able to get reliable sources that verify that--say, an article in a photography/camera magazine. This could be a review, but not the blog review that ORiumX linked to before. And the very fact that you point out that the product is only a week old is, in fact, an argument against inclusion. Wikipedia covers topics after they have become notable, not in presumption that they will be some day. If you don't like our policies, get consensus and change them. Until you do, you can't just declare something exempt because some reader somewhere likes it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes: the usual company line. I (and many others), on the other hand believe that articles such as this do no harm (e.g. they are not controversial WP:BLP, and who cares if a little more wiki-ink is spent?), and actually offer a service to our readers (even if that's initially just a handful of readers). Additionally, readers coming to this stub may decide to improve it, and some may even stay to become valuable editors over time. Anyhow, sanity has prevailed and (as you say) there's no deletion discussion going on, so ... off to build some content (somewhere).
 * PS. I have no intention of trying to change your mind about the company line; however you should be aware that there are reasonable content-building editors who do not necessarily share such rigid interpretations of the "rules". Cheers.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)