Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon products

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Canon products
Delete. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. -- Egil 17:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a list of encyclopedic products. Kappa 18:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Man, are we repeating ourselves or what? Keep but de-redlink. Radiant_* 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the only justification I could see for deletion would be if it is regarded as advertising. However I don't think this is. Corporate web sites only deal with current products. Historical information is useful. T Long 13:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * What?!?!? This is an encyclopedia we are creating. Wikipedia is not the WWW. Relevance, notability and all other qualities for an encyclopedia article must also be considered. I see very little value in this list as it stands. -- Egil 14:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedias are supposed to be encyclopedic. --Gene_poole 06:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is forging new ground as an encyclopedia. Just because traditional encyclopedias don't usually have lists of products (and I'm not sure this is always true - I'm sure examples can be found), doesn't mean that it isn't a good topic for an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual (albeit dry to read).  And specifically to Canon, lots of people are interested to learn what products Canon has produced.  For example, I am here because I was at a festival today and saw lots of Canon products.  The first thing I did when I came home was to go to Wikipedia to see if I could identify what models I had seen. Jon Backenstose 00:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Among all the asinine lists here, we find one worth-while and flag for its destruction. Why, oh why? --Asriel86 23:24, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going to put it in sections as well... -- Lochaber 13:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I am a bit leery of the problem of "free advertising", only in encyclopedic entries such as these will you find both the positive and negative aspects of the products.  No, do not turn to a photo magazine; why would the editors of a photography magazine turn away their biggest source of revenue?  So, the fact that Wikipedia does not get any money from Canon is exactly why it should have entries for its products.  Wikipedia entries would contain information - given a good length of time for photographers and others to make entries - that would not be available on any Canon advertisement.  I guess it's a "checks and balances" thing.  JR
 * Delete Advertising does not belong here does it? Whats so important of a list of products from a company? Shall we start having lists of products from all companys? Foant 20:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.