Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio Exilim EX-S600

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 Delete--Konstable 07:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casio Exilim EX-S600

Individual camera model information is unnecessary at this level of detail. Prod removed by poster. ArmadilloFromHell 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT a camera user guide. Erechtheus 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• I made that page, and you want to delete it because it's to detailed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiftysixmoha (talk • contribs).
  • First, sign your posts with ~~~~. Second, try reading WP:NOT as linked by Erechtheus; it mentions that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article definitely is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the nominator is wrong. Some subjects can be covered in this level of detail. However, only if one doesn't contravene our Wikipedia:No original research policy by doing so — i.e. there must be multiple published non-trivial sources (independent of the subject and its manufacturer, per our WP:CORP criteria) that already cover the subject in this level of detail. Given that this article cites "My Casio Exilim EX-S600 Digital Camera, and myself" as its references, it clearly isn't based upon sources. Please always use sources when writing articles, and do not perform original research. Uncle G 09:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per those above. Casio's a notable manufacturer, but not everything which comes out of their factories is notable in and of itself. Also, note that the author removed the AfD template from the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC0
• I read the WP:NOT and my article is perfectly fine within thoses lines! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.248.103.67 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: A bit of semantics... please note that this is not "your" article, per WP:OWN. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • REPLY I get the fact that the article I wrote infact does not belong to me, because it is a contribution from me, that is what I ment by "my" article, and what does that have to do with my article being deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.248.97.80 (talk • contribs).
      • Deliberately citing yourself as a reference is within the field of original research. Beyond that, even if the article is well-written, the topic isn't that notable. A style of architecture is noteworthy, but not every one of the thousands of examples of it are. A company may be noteworthy, but not necessarily everything it makes. A particular device may be described in general, but not every make and model of it need be explored in depth. There are explanations of what cameras are and what they do; we don't need an article about every camera. Djcartwright 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • ReplyAt this point, I would like wikipedia to keep this article, at this point will my article be deleted? if so -or- if not, pleaes notify me ASAP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.248.97.37 (talk • contribs).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wing000 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia should have a list of all digitals cameras.--Taida 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Wikipedia already has an article on Digital cameras which seems to cover all the important aspects thereof. Why is any one given exemplar of the type any more notable than any other? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; if there is any useful content (i.e., that does not read like a product review), then it should be merged into Casio Exilim and the page should be redirected there. Information on the various models of this line of camera may be useful for comparison purposes in that main article, but as it stands, a page on each individual model seems unencyclopedic, and seems to provide a magnet for addition of POV content that would turn Wikipedia into epinions.com. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BigHaz nails it. —ptk✰fgs 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)