Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon DV 012


 * 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   merge to List of Canon camcorders. The general consensus is that the camcorders are not individually notable, but there is no consensus for outright deletion. Several editors agreed that merging them all into an article along the lines of List of Canon camcorders would be the most appropriate course of action. As such an article does not yet exist, some editorial work will be required. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Canon DV 012

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

All Canon camcorders with basically reiteration of technical specification and abilities copied from instruction manuals for the camcorders. These devices in themselves are not notable for their own articles. See WP:NOTCATALOG. Ejfetters (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Ejfetters (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ejfetters (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree, unless you plan to collect the varied information into a single page that summarizes the development of digital camcorders. The Canon XL-1s and Canon XL-2 in particular were instrumental in bringing 3-CCD quality to the independent film industry. -- Autopilot (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't give the cameras notability still, the technology in itself is notable, and has its own article at Three-CCD. Any pertinent information here can be reiterated there where it belongs.  The complete technical specifications and abilities of the camcorders themselves should not be listed there, per WP:NOTCATALOG. Ejfetters (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-CCD only discusses the technical aspects of the technology and how the trichroic prism works, not the development of the independent film community that came out of (relatively) inexpensive, high quality cameras. -- Autopilot (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then add it to the article. Ejfetters (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Lithorien (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Who writes all these device model articles that have been on AfD lately?... --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for every Canon camcorder that exists or has existed. Nothing to suggest independent notability. Tim Song (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep- History belongs on Wiki, Spam does not. This is clearly the history of the digital video recorder.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, what are you basing that on? It's not as clear to me that that's what these articles are. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment why not delete most articles under Category:Camcorders and Category:Digital SLR cameras for the same reasons? Shawnc (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per Autopilot: "The majority of them could easily be merged into a per-manufacturer list, but some do deserve their own articles." Keep articles for which notability is asserted, redirect others to a list. Shawnc (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into groups for related models--appropriate compromise. Given that major consumer products of major companies are notable, and they all invariably have reviews, it would in principle be possible to write an article on each that has been released, and unreleased ones that have been discussed in the press also,, but this can usefully be condensed somewhat. This material is typically available on manufacturers sites only when the product is still available, so it is appropriate for us to provide the coverage.    DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely concur with DGG here. We do not need individual articles on every individual device, but it's perfectly appropriate to merge them all into a list of Canon camcorders.  (Individual items on a list do not need to be notable—see WP:CLN for more information on the purpose and value of lists on Wikipedia.)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What makes the camcorder line notable then? I fear a combined list article might still run afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. --Cyber cobra (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that applies. Nobody was planning to add a price list.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge all into list of camcorders or similar article. Unless a particuar model introduced a notable tenchnological advance, one camcorder is no more notable than any other camcorder... and Wikipedia should not end up as an advertizing venue for Canon. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree First, Sony, Panasonic and other camcorders also have entries in the Wikipedia. Second, this is not a catalog, these are entries that are supposed to contain links to notable reviews, discussions, howtos, ets. Also, practical usage is noted, like usage in movies and TV shows, and technical details are revealed. The fact that many of these articles are too short is not a reason for deletion. In particular, the XH-A1 is the first HDV 1080 progressive camcorder, the HV20 is the first consumer progressive-scan HDV camcorder, the HF100 is the first Canon card-based camcorder with 24p and 30p modes, etc. Many of these models are "first" in one or another regard. I suggest you thinking twice before deleting these articles. Mikus (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF generally isn't accepted as a valid argument in AfD. I would also support the merging of panasonic, sony, etc camcorders into lists. -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The camcorders in themselves are not notable. The technologies may be notable and have there own articles.  The only thing these devices have are technical specs and capabilities.  A list of devices would not conform to WP:NOTCATALOG - leaving off the prices is by far the only thing to do to conform these articles.  As far as camcorders by other manufacturers, they should be deleted too, Panasonic has several I nominated too.  There are likely thousands and thousands of camcorder models, what makes these ones themselves notable?  Should we make an article for every single camcorder ever made? Ejfetters (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The camcorders in themselves are not notable." -- Dude, you are obviously not into video, you don't know notable from not notable. Why do you care at all about stuff that you don't know much about? These entries will evolve, every camcorder has its fans and its aura. It is not just a model number in a price list. Mikus (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting Wikipedia should have an article for every model of every single camcorder just because someone likes every single camcorder? That's not notable.  Merge to a list of camcorders will suffice. Ejfetters (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you said a main point in the articles is to have a how-to for each camcorder, please see WP:NOTHOWTO. As for the instruction manual reiterations please see WP:NOTMANUAL.  Your arguments don't conform to these guidelines. Ejfetters (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would concur that if you aren't into film making you might not realize how notable some of these models really are. The majority of them could easily be merged into a per-manufacturer list, but some do deserve their own articles.  -- Autopilot (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, reviews themselves aren't notable enough either. Its likely every single camcorder ever released has a consumer review. Ejfetters (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And also, I was awaiting to nominate the Sony, Panasonic and JVC camcorders with articles pending the outcome of this AFD. Ejfetters (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into lists based on series. Sometimes putting all the information from a number of articles into a list is better than the sum of its parts -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a list would be fine, a chart-type list of features, etc. One list for each manufacturer?  The entire article should not be merged for all of them though. Ejfetters (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "a chart-type list of features" -- you really don't know how the technology works. You cannot have a chart for all models simply because each new model adds a new feature. Are you suggesting updating the characteristics of ALL models and updating THE WHOLE table when a single new model adds a single new feature? This is insane. Mikus (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't list every single feature the device has, that would just reiterate the instruction manual specs again, as I have said, see WP:NOTMANUAL. Ejfetters (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting direct from WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:... 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. And from WP:NOTGUIDE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:... 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project, Wikibooks. Furthermore you stated it is the article's purpose to provide links to howtos and reviews... This is not a Wikipedia article's purpose. WP:NOTLINK states the following: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not:... 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.  Ejfetters (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at what you've done for Wikipedia, seems that you are on a crusade for deleting "unimportant" pages. Maybe you should bring in something for a change. Mikus (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks have no place in here, please see WP:CIVIL and keep the discussion about the AfD. Ejfetters (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into one article or list, or a few articles or lists. Some of this information could be helpful, interesting, or useful. I got to one of these pages by clicking a link on a TV show's page, which said that one of these cameras, the Canon XH-G1, was chosen for its compactness, to allow producers to design sets that give the show a more intimate and realistic feel. I don't think all this information needs to be struck from Wikipedia, but I agree some of it is just not notable, so I think the most popular or revolutionary (first to have a particular feature) cameras could have their own articles, which would explain why they are notable. The others could appear in a list or chart, or they could be mentioned in the articles for the more notable cameras. Gary (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge, retain redirects. Nowadays, many people use Wikipedia rather than Google... --Janke | Talk 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - many of these models do have notability based on the normal definition - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Usually this will be from things such as product reviews in consumer or industry magazines.  Notability aside, they are deserve to be cover at minimum as part of a combination article.  I have no problems merging them all into one article, as they can always be split back off later if a need to do so is established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: List_of_Canon_products currently exists. Shawnc (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with merging these there then. I understand some may be notable and information to prove as such should be brought to said articles so they can be preserved. Ejfetters (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.