Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon EOS 300X (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Canon EOS; implemented as a redirect for now so that the merge can occur from the history.  Sandstein  20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Canon EOS 300X
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This non-notable commercial product was previously nominated; the result was "merge". Four months later, the merge hasn't happend, so I'm nominating again. Mikeblas (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge (Same arguments as in the previous AFD) Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 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 dozens of 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.  (New comment: If no closing admin can figure out what to merge, then replace this unreferenced stub by a redirect to Canon EOS) Edison (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep an SLR from a company like Canon has considerable media coverage, such as at least one in-depth review from each of the major photography magazines. Camera models definitely can be fleshed out into strong articles, have a look at Canon AE-1 for an example. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Commnet. See WP:WAX. The AE-1 was a trend-setting camera; this model is a secondary model of a derivative of a somewhat interesting model; even then, the root model is nothing near the AE-1 in terms of industry influence. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per previous AFD- Although I'm curious why the nominator couldn't just be Bold and do the merge it themselves, instead of bringing it to AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is already answered above: I don't think the product is notable. Since the material in the article is unreferenced and Wikipedia doesn't allow OR, it hsould be removed -- not merged. Have you asked the voters in the previous AfD why they didn't merge it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per previous AFD. Just because one doesn't agree with the outcome of an AFD doesn't mean an article should be renominated so soon after the previous AFD has been closed with a decision. Exactly why the merge hasn't taken place, I do not know. My suggestion is contact the closing editor. Perhaps they haven't gotten around to it yet. There is no time limit on making improvements or merges. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (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.