Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JVC GZ-MG135


 * 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   '''I'm going to delete this, following the consensus that seems to have developed. I note, however, that I tend to agree w/DGG's comments below, and would probably have said "Keep" for the same reason as he.'''. - Philippe 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

JVC GZ-MG135

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

Non-notable. Products of this type are too numerous to have separate WP articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. The number of such products is not a reason to delete. The content might be merged if there is overlap with other similar articles but that would not be deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two articles in the popular press is no justification of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two such sources are usually considered prima facie evidence of notability. Note that notability does not mean importance; it merely means worthy of notice and the sources are evidence that others have noticed the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But two source cannot be construed to be significant coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * from the cited reviews, "a fair-to-middling performance across all areas, while excelling at none." If just one of these reviews told me that it had little legs and would walk around shooting my footage for me, then that would be notable. As it is, it's just yet more of the same old same old. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite to make it look less like an advertisement. J I P  | Talk 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's a single brand of camcorder. Colonel Warden, why does that link show notability? It isn't any kind of loaded question, I just dont understand why. Ironho lds 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The link I provided shows notability as there are two substantial reviews by the periodicals Stuff and Good Gear Guide. Your apparent opinion is that camcorders are not important enough to be included in Wikipedia. This is irrelevant since we go by the opinion of independent journalists, authors and scholars who demonstrate by their work that the subject is worthy of notice. This is the objective test of notability per WP:N. By using this guideline we avoid subjective arguments about whether camcorders are more or less worthy of notice than types of car, beetle, cheese or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we apply the criteria of WP:N in its strictest sense we could add thousands of electronic consumer items. Consumer items on the whole have less notability than say, villages or academic theorems. Exception are the likes of the Walkman, the iPod etc. Having said that there are plenty of articles on individual models of cellphones and digital cameras. Where do we draw the line? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is a threshold. Once an item is past that threshold, it meets our standards for inclusion. Debating the relative notability of items beyond this threshold is pointless here since it is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability should be put in context with all the other articles in WP. A camcorder is not notable for inclusion if we say, have not got all the core or basic topics covered. On the other hand if we include this model of camcorder we should include all others that are as notable. Given the current stage of WP I feel that we should not be including this type of consumer product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless something can be found about this particular model that makes it particularly noteworthy. From WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." In my judgement, two product reviews is not enough to be "significant coverage". --Smiller933 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You want things to be not just notable but "particularly notable".? How many sources are required for this and why is this extraordinary requirement needed for camcorders? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Twisting my words around isn't going to win my support. I don't consider two product reviews to be "significant coverage". This is true whether we are talking about camcorders or something else. Changed to Delete. --Smiller933 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Products are inherently non-notable, they become notable when and only when they have been the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources. These sources need to be media about the real-world significance of the product not just a review or press-release. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Inherently non-notable? Where did you get that from? Or do you mean not inherently notable, which means something completely different? And what is wrong with reviews for establishing notability? They are written by independent journalists and published based on editorial judgement - you can't lump them in with press releases. We accept reviews for books, bands etc. so why not for camcorders? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another camcorder. Needs to show something special about it beyond other camcorders before it might become notable. WP isn't a product catalogue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't see anything in our guidelines about subjects needing to be "special" - only that they should be notable based on the existence of independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Independent sources confer verifiability, not notability. No-one disputes that this thing exists and is verifiable, it just isn't interesting or notable. It's one product in a world full of similar ones, a bit better than last week's model, not quite as good as next week's. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Personally, I dont think that the general notability criterion makes much sense, since it bears no necessary relation in either direction to any concept of importance or suitability for an encyclopedia, but it remains the policy. If 2 RSs talk specifically about a particular model of any product in a substantial way, it's notable until we change the policy. A product catalog is something that lists every model & variation, --not all models or trivial variations of everything get reviewed. DGG (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've been carefully avoiding using the word keep or delete here because I'm in agreement with DGG that there are cases where current policy and guidelines (which would point to a keep) produce undesirable results. I think Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with an article on JVC camcorders covering the whole range, because that would allow for different models to be placed in context, but I'm sure that most of the sources would be about specific models such as the reviews cited here. Any article on the whole range based on these sources could be slapped down as original research because the sources don't explicitly talk about the range, so we are left with the situation where we can have articles on some models but not others based on the rather arbitrary criterion of whether they have been reviewed by easily accessible publications, and we don't have any real way of putting them in context. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you couldn't create a page for the whole range of JVC camcorders using references that each discuss only a single model. As long as you aren't synthesizing any information, I don't see how this violates WP:OR.  For example, you couldn't say "Model Y is a slightly improved version of Model X, with many similarities including the same flux capacitor", unless you found sources that stated that.  That said, it's not uncommon for a product review to compare a product to its predecessor(s).  One example of a similar page is HP LaserJet - perhaps not the best example since that page could use a lot more footnotes.  --Smiller933 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see our editing policy. Then general idea of the Wiki is that we let such articles coalesce from imperfect fragments.  It is not our policy to expect immaculate accounts of a wide topic to spring forth fully formed.  Deletion does not assist in such cases because it destroys the details as they appear.  If you are not prepared to do the hard work of reshaping all this material then please do not expect more from other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why does this article exist? If those advocating could please explain to me why it's useful or informative to have it, then I might be more inclined to support it. As it is, it's just not useful to me. What am I missing here? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteWikipedia is not a JVC catalog. The article reads like it was written from the owner's manual, complete with "what comes in the box." Should there be a Wikipedia article for every product which was ever offered for sale by any company which had two product reviews? I think not. A short product review falls short of a demonstration of notability. It would be more appropriate to have a list of JVC camcorders with the features of each model, the date introduced, separated by the mode of recording (tape, hard drive, etc.) I cannot find such an article. There are no refs to show that it was a significant development in the history of camcorders, or a landmark product for the manufacturer. Edison (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Few third party reviews...none included in article. Reads like a specs sheet. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:25, 4 July 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.