Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10


 * 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. The discussion below notes sources sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements and additional expansion since the start of the AfD. Non-admin close. -- jonny - m t  12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10

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

prod removed with a long explanation on the talk page. The article remains almost completely unreferenced, and reads like an advertisement. There's no claim to notabiltiy in the article itself, and the article itself mentions none of the points raised on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a digital camera catalog, and Wikipedia is not a catalog of Panasonic products. Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Photography talk page.   — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any useable content to Lumix. Although that article is in need of some attention, it seems a logical home for the product listings. Travellingcari (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Claims notability and has sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or preferably merge + redirect to Lumix - it is one of the better sourced digicam articles. Merging would be the best option and deletion would be harsh. I don't think however that it was a PRODable article as the deletion of these articles are fairly controversial. EJF (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what set of articles is in "these articles", but many have been deleted without being contested. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am referring to articles such as those on, for example, digital cameras and mobile phones, as these often would be considered controversial deletions; a probable reason that many have not been contested is that they have not been given the 'publicity' of an AfD process. EJF (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - and object to procedure. The article was tagged with prod on 12 Feb. 2008. The prod tag specifies, "... You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." (My emphasis) On 15 Feb. 2008 I did just that, I removed the prod tag and I wrote a detailed explanation why I thought the article should not be deleted. I even requested to be notified if it was really necessary for me to work on the article to avoid its deletion. Instead, the article was nominated for deletion on 18 Feb., and my following the rules is now ridiculed as "... prod removed with a long explanation on the talk page...". Hope it can be understood that this is not appreciated by an editor who is trying to improve Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that this AfD be canceled, and I'll do what I can to improve the article, OK? Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you object to the AfD procedure, I think the best place to start is the Wikipedia Village Pump. I don't think the processes is likely to change. The article is up for AfD because it's not your opinion alone that prevents it from being deleted. The sentence you quote is written as a plain statement of fact, and includes a link so others can read your explanation. The decision to interpret it negatively is entirely your own. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. At first I was going to let this drop, but I find that after several days I'm still very irritated, so here goes. When I say "object to procedure", what I (obviously?) mean is that I object to the specific procedure used in this AfD, and the parallel one for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. The editor who placed prod tags on these two articles apparently did so in bad faith, as he then moved on to AfD irrespective of input generated by the prod tagging. If this was the intention then it would have been better to simply AfD the article from the start. I find it very difficult to believe that this way of doing things can be consistent with Wikipedia policy, as it is quite counter-productive for good faith editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia, in which category I would like to place myself, and would hope that my profile and history confirms. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to WP:DP, the procedure followed here is correct. prod is for deletions that aren't contested. I didn't anticipate any contest as many other articles about cameras have been deleted without contest. Once the prod was contested, I tagged the article for discussion about deletion, which is AfD. That processes lets both sides be heard. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, now that I've (finally) read WP:DP I will offer an apology.
 * I do have one suggestion though. I think the text displayed by the prod tag should be changed. The current text implies that by objecting to the deletion you avoid the article being AfD'd, while in fact the opposite is the case! --RenniePet (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm glad you've calmed down. I'm not in control of the messages in the templates. If ou'd like them to change, you might start at Village pump or at the talk page for the template, Template talk:Prod. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a major product with sufficient product reviews available for sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Using reviews as sources, we'll never be able to write an article that itself isn't a review. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. And? Like, reviews can be fascinating and contain insightful information that determines what it's all about. A review is a source of information, and if you want you can consider any reference work to be a review. A history book is a review of a period of history.
 * If it makes a difference to the outcome of this AfD, I can spend another 1 1/2 hours rewriting and expanding this article, like I did with Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. But I really don't see why it should be necessary (and I really don't have the time). --RenniePet (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. And, Wikipedia is not a directory. If all that can be written is a review, the product is not notable enough to have its own article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've now done a rewrite of the article. Hope this helps. (More references would be nice.) --RenniePet (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no problem with the article. Notable product with references added. --Tone 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been nicely expanded by RenniePet and additional references added. And there is a news reference here.  Satisfies notability per sufficient reliable sources. The nominator's directory argument does not apply, as anyone and anything is a entry in a directory of some kind and WP:NOT applies to entries with absolutely no other significance. As an example of a misapplication of that concept, all articles on cars, such as the famous Ford Mustang or the Model T should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory of automobiles. Reviews are perfectly good sources as they, per WP:N provide ...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and they are used in other articles. And other camera articles got deleted under the radar. — Becksguy (talk) 22:21, 24 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.