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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fujifilm X10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Fujifilm X20 and Fujifilm X30; they are successive models of a single quite popular thoug not particularly innovative camera line. It makes much more sense to cover them together: the data can be shown compactly in acomaprative fashion, and there will be sufficient reviews to show notability . I'm not sure about the best name for the merged article. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and oppose merge. One article per product is the established convention across Wikipedia, and has almost universally been applied to camera articles. Arbitrary decisions about which articles are allowed to stand alone are rather problematic, especially when economic interests are involved. Note that I fully support having summary articles - we have these at all levels - Fujifilm products, X series products, etc. As DGG has said, there is no particularly slick name offering itself in this case. Convention would suggest "Fujifilm X10 series". Samsara 08:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three cameras. One article per product is absolutely not an established convention. If that were true, Wikipedia would be a catalog, and it's WP:NOT. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifialy says, at WP:PRODUCT "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700 this was discussed in depth and I found numerous examples of deletions on the grounds that each individual model of motorcycle did not merit an article, and zero examples of motorcycle articles kept because they were a model, without also meeting WP:GNG. The misconception about product models is an ongoing problem. Part of this is due to the formatting issue created when you have three ((Infobox camera))s or ((Infobox motorcycle))s and not enough text to support the vertical space they take up when stacked. We need a technical solution to this, which is possible. But the proliferation of articles for each model of something has to be beaten back whenever possible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • without also meeting WP:GNG which you have not established isn't actually true here. Also, since you mention rendering problems with merged articles, do you understand how merging affects hProduct tags and mobile browsing? Samsara 20:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we care about hproduct tags? Which notability policy says we have to acoomodate hproduct tags? Seems like any attempt to make a 1:1 correlation between articles and hproduct tags is a flagrant contradiction of the WP:NOTCATALOG policy. The documentation says "The hProduct microformat can assist consumers, manufacturers and retailers in a number of ways". Wikipedia does not exist to serve the needs of consumers, manufacturers, or retailers. If you must make one page per product for hformat to work, they need to fix that bug in hformat. You can't ask the world to change to fit your structured data scheme. Your format must change to describe the world. As far as GNG, this product has received zero coverage in any sources, except product reviews. The policy WP:NOTCATALOG says " Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. "

      Also mobile devices? If your mobile device browser can't reasonably display Honda Super Cub or Ford Mustang or Crazy Taxi (series) correctly, your device has a bug. You need a new browser or a new smartphone. Perhaps try one of the several Wiki viewer apps on the market. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Mainstream media sources? No problem. The Telegraph, Daily Mail, FOCUS and Spiegel all wrote full length articles about it. [1] [2] [3] [4] Maybe do a little bit of research yourself next time. Samsara 19:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't seem to understand that routine product reviews do not establish notability. Personal remarks like "Maybe do a little bit of research yourself next time" are just rude, and do not add to the notability of the product. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • What else should one write about a camera other than a review? An opera, perhaps? Please enlighten me! Samsara 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search show multiple significant reviews of the camera in mainstream sources like PC Magazine and TechCrunch, and quite in-depth reviews in specialist publications like DP Review and Imaging Resource. This camera is also notable for an early technical fault, the "white orb" problem, which forced a product-wide firmware update: sources include [5], [6], and an SPIE paper. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show notability per WP:GNG. A notable topic and an article with WP:POTENTIAL for improvement suggest keeping the article. I am not opposed to a summary article describing the Fujifilm X-series cameras--indeed we already have one at Fujifilm X-series. But there is plenty of sourcing for a stand alone X10 article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we have to agree to disagree on whether or not any of that equals notablity. The product reviews have already been shown by policy to not add to notability. Bendgate or exploding-Galaxy Note 7-gate is a notable product issue; orbgate is not. It received no attention besides a couple very short blog posts in specialized media. There was a bug, they upgraged the firmaware, bug fixed. There's no reason why all of this can't be covered in an article on all 3 versions in this series.

    A redirect and merge in no way prevents this topic from reaching it's potential. If the X10 portion of the article grows to great size, it can spawn its own article from the redirect. The only argument presented at this WP:POTENTIAL essay is that it might eventually lead to an article that is too long and "constrain encyclopedia expansion". Constrain how? What constraints? It makes no sense. If it does get too long, split it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the X10 portion of the article grows to great size, it can spawn its own article from the redirect. Notability is not assessed by article size. Samsara 07:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, we disagree. Your quote above was only in the context of sales catalog pricing and availability, which is irrelevant here. If product reviews are of sufficient depth and originality/independence that they go way beyond any sales materials, they are independent RS upon which to build an article and count toward notability. I think all four sources mentioned above are in sufficient depth to qualify and the DP Review and Imaging Resource reviews are especially thorough. --Mark viking (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets be realistic about the potential question. Why would anyone now want to write about these cameras, and why would anyone read it?Rathfelder (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there are always people who care about completeness. Samsara 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there are people more interested in cameras than you are? This is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, per WP:WHOCARES. --Mark viking (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT does not say reviews can rise to become something more than reviews with extra depth, independence or originality. A review is still a review. And anyway, the reviews we've been shown of the X10 are perfunctory. These review websites routinely crank out these reviews of everything.

        If sources exist which could be used to expand the article, that's potential. If the sources don't exist, we don't keep articles because we hope someday sources will be published. That is not potential, it's speculation and wishful thinking.

        It is true that notability would prevent splitting off an article later -- what I can't figure out is a situation where the quantity of content about the X10 has grown to 5-10 thousand words or more, yet none of it is based on sources that can establish notability. A standalone X10 article would be come possible if something new is found, or is published. Based on what we have now, there is no notability, and no potential beyond a stub. That essay Potential is terrible. It hasn't been updated since 2009, and it clearly doesn't reflect real policy or real guidelines. It's more like an artifact left over from a failed argument on the direction policy would take seven years ago.

        I say this as a Fujifilm fanboy; I'm afraid to admit how much I've spent on the Fuji cameras and lenses sitting here next to me. This X10/20/30 series of closely-related cameras could be a fine article, with interesting information and overall, taken together, the three models are significant. But the differences between the three are trivial, evolutionary changes of one component here, another component there. All these little product perma-stubs are bad content and unhelpful for our readers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my question produced a helpful answer. I suggest a merger of the 3 articles would be a sensible solution. The individual items in themselves are not separately very interesting. Taken together they get over the threshold.Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such consensus here, sorry! Samsara 19:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Because there are always people who care about completeness"? What does that mean? In what way does merging the articles prevent any editor from achieving "completeness"? If you have facts to add to the topic, add them. If some day this camera sub-model becomes notable, and we have so much to say about it that a merged article can't contain it all, we can split it back out. This amounts to nothing more than a desire to have 1 article per product name -- not even distinct products, but one product with three slightly different versions, and 3 slightly different names. Avoiding this nonsense is why the Honda Fit article covers the Honda Jazz car and three different generations which are significantly more different from one another than these three camera model names. Featured articles like Holden Commodore (VE) similarly combine coverage of product variants that appeared over a span of time. This is all for the benefit of the reader. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"significantly more different from one another than these three camera model names" That is your argument? You only looked at the names and decided they weren't sufficiently different? I'm unsure sometimes if you even understand the broader implications of your soundbites. Samsara 20:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.