Talk:Olympus PEN E-PM1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

This page should not have been deleted. The person since has disappeared, is it related to conduct like this? All technical information is relevant, if there is a policy against it, it is a shameful policy, and should be changed. Product information is often the public end of technical information. If it had been an insignificant one off one item creation, that is different. It was in fact the smallest of the a very significant exchangeable lens format, some new features, and could pass through the hands of hundreds of thousands of people before they die of old age and are junked, those looking to buy might also look at it.

This person did not consider people that want to research the camera or are buying new or secondhand. All to often history is gone and people can't find it, this is where that history should exist. I've seen this witch hunt biased treatment before, one more notable example was when a notable company's entry was deleted because a biased editor wants the entry name to just refer to a less notable company they are interested in. These people should not be allowed to roam about in a witch hunt looking for things to delete to justify their feeling useful, they should be deleted off the site. Maybe Wikipedia should refine there policies, to make deletion for more firm reasons that somebody can report, and only allow selected trust worthy people to review these requests and decide if it should be deleted then, with a permanent sanitised backup copy available if deletion is appealed and the article is to be reinstated. I'm not talking about changes here, but article deletion, though we have seen company people change articles to suite themselves, to remove truthful record, to make themselves look good, but that is a seperate issue.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.14.137 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 24 October 2013

Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Safiel (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. The most important thing the article lacks is any reference to a reliable source to comply with the fundamental Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: deletion[edit]

I was the editor who PRODed the article. I should note that Wikipedia is NOT a consumer research site. It is an Encyclopedia and thus its subjects should meet certain notability requirements to be included. When I proposed this article for deletion, the camera in question did not appear to meet the notability requirements. I may or may not nominate the article for deletion, depending on whether I find evidence that the camera in question is notable. As JohnCD mentioned above, the article does not have sources and thus no indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I will go ahead and get the AfD ball rolling now. Safiel (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)