Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minolta TC-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, article has been improved and camera notability asserted. Canley (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minolta TC-1

Minolta TC-1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced, non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Minolta catalog. Wikipedia is not a camera guide. Listing for AfD after prod was "Removed deletion proposal based on tens of thousands of Google matches". Mikeblas (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect - WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added references. Minolta no longer makes cameras, so there's no worry about this making Wikipedia a Minolta camera catalog. The TC-1 was a notable product. It deserves an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone seems to have changed the article to imply that the camera is a current offering. Not wanting to get involved directly with the editing of the article I thought I'd mention it here. As it stands at the moment it looks very much like an advert even if only a very short one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Mainly leaning towards delete as the article is more of an Ad type. It has potential information if expanded, however, I don't really think this is needed for an encyclopedia. Dustitalk to me 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak DeleteIf the TC-1 was a notable product, it would be nice to see why in the article. Was there anything unique about it among cameras? any problems in manufacture, controversies, etc?Protonk (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Protonk, thanks for suggesting adding unique characteristics. The TC-1 had a circular aperture. This is different from the aperture on most cameras, which is formed by curved blades (typically six or eight of them). The article now mentions this unusual feature. Also, the camera won the Camera Grand Prix of the Camera Journal Press Club of Japan in 1996. I've added this information to the article together with a link to the Camera Journal Press Club's Web site. This establishes the notability of the subject and takes care of the unreferenced issue. Fg2 (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)(edited 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
    • Changed to Keep See, thats kind of cool.  :) Good luck with further sheparding of this article. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - thanks to Fg2 for improving the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 18 April 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.