Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Canon PowerShot A95

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Thryduulf 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Canon PowerShot A95

Advertising. Surely Canon does not need to hawk its wares in Wiki? Delete Eddie.willers 01:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There are numerous similar articles, this one is not vainity, and only bordering on advertising[1].--inks 01:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable project. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is great and all, by why is one particular model of a new camera in an encyclopedia.Voice of All (talk) 05:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CapitalistRoadster. This model should be in an enclopedia for the benefit of people who are interested in the model itself, the delevopment of Canon digital cameras, or state of the digital camera market in the mid 2000's. Kappa 10:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the advertising goes. Pilatus 11:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I don't see having it as being too much different from having, say, pages for individual aircraft models like Boeing 747. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Alf ^melmac 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the "similar" articles cited above are new additions and just as bad as this one. Unless they have withstood a VfD or are long standing, their current existence proves nothing. That said, this is not very encyclopedic. What about this camera makes it worthy of inclusion over the thousands of other cameras that have been made over the years? Peyna 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, digital camera models are notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as I dont see how how this article/page violates any policy. Besides the ouput generated by the mediawiki using image exif data, wikifies the camera model, which obviously means its expecting a page for the camera model. check Image:IMG 3469.jpg and ye shall see!. --Oblivious 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Nerge with Canon PowerShot A75, Canon PowerShot A410 and Canon PowerShot A510 into a single Canon PowerShot A article analogous to the Canon PowerShot G article which covers all the various models of Canon's PowerShot G series of digital cameras. To use the analogy with the Boeing 747 article that ceejayoz mentioned, we don't have individual articles for every single variant of the 747, but a single article that contains the small details of how the various variants differ from one another, with seperate article for a few of the more notable variants like the current Air Force One. Caerwine 05:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the other models into a single article is more useful, e.g. for comparison. as per Caerwine --Vsion 07:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep camera models are now linked with Metadata from image description pages. It would be nice to make Wikipedia a great resource for what cameras people use to take pictures, so Keep. NSR (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge per Caerwine. This is not DigitalCameraPedia. Barno 19:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We even have articles for some Nikon lenses...but it needs to be cleaned up and NPOVed. In its current form, it does read like an ad. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. freestylefrappe 02:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per NSR above. Lerdsuwa 05:21, 21 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.