Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentax 67

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 redirect‎ to Pentax 6×7. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax 67

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Undiscussed SPLIT, of information which is covered in target by COI/UPE editor (see that editor's talk page). Should be restored redirect - but simply doing so is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a redirect again —I have still the hope that we can convince User:Opcouk to keep this article as a redirect (or block the account if Opcouk continues with reverting us). The page has some incoming links thus a redir would be useful. --Cyfal (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax 67 is the trade mark owned by Photo-Image Ltd UK company which has revived the Asahi Pentax brand along with Asahi Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 67. Photo-Image Ltd is the copyright owner of the words "Pentax 67", "Asahi Pentax" and "Asahi Pentax 6x7". This information is pertinent and must be included in Wikipedia articles.

Pentax 6x7 article must be renamed to the correct name "Asahi Pentax 6x7".

Pentax 67 and Asahi Pentax 6x7 are not the same thing. Ask Photo-Image Ltd. Opcouk (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Based on reading through some photography articles, the 67 isn't notable enough by itself for its own article with what I've seen. And definitely not with the sourcing present on the article. Restoring the redirect and a combined article would better serve our readers at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have refrained from voting since I was one of the editors who attempted simply to revert this to a redirect, but User:Opcouk has now been indefinitely blocked for socking and a promotional username. So this discussion may be moot. Lithopsian (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2023 (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.