Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7


 * 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 keep. John254 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7

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

Was PROD-tagged. Listing at AfD to gain consensus. EJF (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Photography talk page.   — Becksguy (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable product, plenty of professional reviews. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew. Hazillow (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable product, plenty to source it out there. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I added multiple references, including several from professional review sites, as mentioned by Andrew. I also added that the camera was awarded Editor's Choice by PC Magazine in 2006. Granted that this is not the ground breaking digital camera that the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 is, but it has sufficient sources to establish notability. And it does use the legendary and famous German Leica lens, as does many in the Panasonic Lumix series of digital cameras. The article could use some improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. — Becksguy (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge to Lumix which has a list of the cameras in this product line, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 to Cyber-shot. Just because the vendor sent out a press release when the particular model was released, and several magazines, websites or blogs printed pro-forma reviews, we do not need a separate article for every model in a product line, each of which is quickly superseded by the next model with slightly different features. 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. The main article can appropriately discuss the Lumix line of cameras. Edison (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Cyber-Shot merge looks like a pretty bad idea. It's a HUGE range of many types of cameras over many years, many of them sharing virtually no features, from the semi-professional 717 and 828 to the tiny and bizarre U-series novelty cameras.  Worst of all, in the attempt to cover a lot of stuff in one article, there's virtually no information in there about any of them. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To characterize the camera reviews as "pro-forma" and based on press releases is incorrect and does a disservice to professional testing and review sites, and to Wikipedia. There are several independent camera technical testing labs that publish full signed reviews with tons of technical data. Reviews from mainstream newspapers don't go into that kind of detailed testing. Also, I didn't use any blogs in the references. And for those products in any company's product line that are notable, yes, we do need articles on them. Notable like this camera, now with two awards and multiple reviews. And I agree with Andrew on merging as a bad idea. — Becksguy (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources. Worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Found another award for the DMC-FZ7, a 2006 DIWA Gold award, now included in the article. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 27 February 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.