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. SpinningSpark 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minolta Maxxum 9000[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a listing of every product which has been offered for sale. Lots of features are listed, but references to satisfy WP:N are lacking. Edison (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is well-sourced and many articles link to it. The only people who will find the article are those that are looking for it and they will be pleased to find it. People who aren't looking for it won't find it, and if they do they can costlessly ignore it. If Wikipedia is to be a repository of knowledge perhaps we should be more tolerant of articles about topics we don't care about. I, for one, would not miss all articles on sports, sports figures, sports contests such as the Olympics or the Super Bowl, anything to do with popular music, and I could go on. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Well-sourced"? There are literally only two sources at all, one of which is an online user's manual and the other a link to ANOTHER wiki. There's not even the faintest hint that anyone has paid any attention to this specific model of camera. And the "article" itself is simply a bunch of bullet-pointed features, making it indistinguishable from a sales brochure. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The data appear accurate and are from an authoritative source. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to make a WP:OSE argument here, but I'm curious as to why this fails WP:N when other similar camera models on the page have articles but have not been nominated for deletion? A couple at a short glance appear to be sourced better, is there truly no way this article can pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 04:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a WP:OSE argument here... Except that you, literally, just did.--Calton | Talk 11:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I didn't even cast a vote, and I am curious as to why the nominator thought this particular model should be nominated without including other similar models in an AfD as well. SportingFlyer talk 00:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked (and I am not the nominator) a multiple AFD has been frowned upon. articles that all have the same problem can be grouped but as soon as someone adds one or two the Wikilaywers stretch their typing fingers to begin with "it is now too broad and confusing. WP:OTHERSTUFF has also become frowned upon because sourcing (to advance notability on an AFD) and consensus determines inclusion. Suggesting that "other stuff exists" appears to be an argument that notability can be transferred or inherited. I am going to place this on my user page: There is NO automatic or inherited notability on Wikipedia.. Otr500 (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar with multiple AfDs, but I was curious - while this article seems currently undersourced, it also is notable and I was curious if this were a starting point for the other camera models, if there was a particular reason why the other camera models passed WP:GNG and this one did not, or if this was the "starter article" to see if there was enough of a consensus to start culling the product models. SportingFlyer talk 04:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is in line with very numerous articles on cameras. This particular model is a notable step in the history of Minolta. I would agree that this is not one of the best articles on Wikipedia, but the reaction to this should be to improve the article, not delete it. Deletion has to improve the encyclopedia, typically by pruning articles that are controversial, libelous, slanted or misinformative; I cannot fathom how any of these criteria could apply to this article. Also, this article exists in three other wikipedias, and has in particular a wealth of information on de: that we could simpy translate for a start. Rama (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fathom how any of these criteria could apply to this article Since not a single one of those particular criteria were brought up, that's a faintly ridiculous argument.

Actually, it isn't a ridiculous argument; quite the opposite. If an article doesn't fail these important criteria, then the whole Afd hangs on "Notability", which is a criterion appropriate for dead tree media, but not WP. WP does not face the same resource constraints that writing on wood fibres does, and WP serves many highly specialized communities of interest. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This particular model is a notable step in the history of Minolta. Prove it. --Calton | Talk 11:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, adding a Blogspot, a Weebly, and a ".info" site as external links? --Calton | Talk 11:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, do tone it down a notch, will you? 1) Well why do you think there is anything hurtful to Wikipedia in the existence of this article? your sole argument is "indistinguishable from a sales brochure", you really think this is a cunning ploy to advertise a 30-year old product by a defunct company? And if all you are unhappy about is the present state of the article, well improve it. 2) The Minolta 9000 was the first auto-focus professional SLR, if that's not a stepping stone in the history of photography for you I don't know what is. This is stated in the lead of the article. Rama (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, here is a NYT article about it - "Camera; New 35-Milimeter for Professionals" and here is a 1986 NYT review of the Canon T90 that refers to the 9000 as "revolutionary", here in an article 70 years of Minolta, the editor of photoclubalpha.com states "It remains a benchmark design.", and the Minolta Users Group reproduces a review in the Australian Photography magazine of February 1986 here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not happy with the article's current sourcing, but I believe the sources found by Coolabahapple get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That there are "other like articles is NEVER a good reason to !vote keep. However: Notability is a reason to keep an article and not the poor shape of an article or the lack of sources on the article. If anyone actually thinks this article is well sourced please ping me so we can study some policies and guidelines. This camera is notable. The Maxxum 9000 was far more advanced than the 7000. The cost for a camera, battery pack, two lens, accessory motor, special back for bracketing, and camera bag was close to $1300.00. This did not include an optional winder. Fourteen lenses between the 9000 and the 7000 and most can be interchanged. The camera has the distinction of a first of a kind auto-focus and has a 1/12,000th of a second minimum shutter speed. These cameras can still be bought on ebay and Amazon for around a 100 bucks or close to $300.00 refurbished. Camera review. Otr500 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. major product, with lots of potential review sources,and lasting interest. We should merge or delete minor variations, but tnot the principal models. The NYT refs are sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 22 March 2018 (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.