Talk:List of Nikon products

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a brand-name catalog. Wetman 21:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Agreed - not a product catalog -- Egil 22:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


We have similar articles. There is no problem to keep this in wikipedia , and is useful. Optim 22:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From VfD[edit]

List of Nikon products[edit]

Including sub-page Nikon D70. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Egil 22:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: It is. Also keep the "subpage". Optim 22:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 22:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • We have many similar articles. I will have to vfd all of them in case of deletion. I dont understand why we keep a list of all software products or a list of IBM products and we delete a list on Nikon products. Are we funded by IBM? :) We need to be fair. Optim 22:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Secretlondon 22:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: WP is not a product catalog -- impossible maintenance task. I'm comfortable with deleting the existing product lists. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. While I don't oppose this article on principle, unless it is made more substantial it misleads readers and as such is not NPOV. --Imran 23:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not the entire Web. This is the sort of material for which corporate websites are ideal—comprehensive, and up-to-date. In many cases, material available on the web has value added to it by being selected for incorporation into Wikipedia and rewritten into an encyclopedia article. But in the case of a corporation's current product line, not only is no value added, but some value is subtracted by incorporating the material into Wikipedia. An historic overview of Nikon products, on the other hand, would be quite worthy of inclusion. Dpbsmith 23:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redir to Nikon - not substantial enough for its own article yet. This probably could have been done without VFD listing. Davodd 01:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) counted as redir -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A) No reason to keep it here: those who need product catalog, go to the source. Those who need independent reviews or best prices, go to the corresponding sites. B) This is slippery slope. Imagine what will happen if some marketroids will learn that WP sports their competitor's catalog... Similarly hunt down other similar marketing catalogs in the WP. --Humus sapiens 04:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, keep. As is. I don't see what the big deal is. RadicalBender 04:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided. IMO it would be cool to have a good list of Nikon products, and not just the current ones. That's where the corporate websites tend to let us down, eg the Paiste cymbal site lists only currently manufactured models, not even ones that were current a week ago and will still be in the shops for the next 2-3 years! That's the most extreme example I know. But, the Nikon article itself is a stub, and if this were merged in I'm not sure the redirect would be useful. Andrewa 06:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) not counted -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep D70 article. Obviously useful, verfiable, extendable content. Only reason proposed for deletion is the claim that Wikipedia is not a product catalog - it clearly is (amongst other things). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) not counted (ambiguous) Optim 11:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim·.· 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What is ambiguous about the word "KEEP"? What is ambiguous about "useful, verfiable, extendable conent"? If these new tallies are to be kept, they need to be accurate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Answered on your talk page. Optim·.· 17:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Nikon products redirected to Nikon and merged. Keep redirect. Best presentation at this time and for the forseeable future is to present a single cohesive article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as redir Optim 11:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I don't love lists, but this is clearly useful, verifiable, and a heck of a lot more handy than loads of other lists we've decided to keep. Sam Spade 10:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k Optim 11:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redir to Nikon and merge - Texture 15:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as redir -- Optim·.· 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect List of Nikon products to Nikon. A decision should be taken here and someone needs to notify User:Vespristiano (who seems to be catologuing his gadget collection!). There was a similar decision on List of Sony products and Sony PictureStation DPP-EX50. See also List of Olympus products and Olympus C-770 Movie, List of Matsushita products and Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1, List of Sony Ericsson products and Sony Ericsson P900 etc etc etc. This guy works hard and has been commended for his work on Star Trek episodes, so a simple pointer towards some kind of policy would help stop these re-appearing on Vfd. akaDruid 16:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as redir -- Optim·.· 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Everyking 20:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Similar articles exist; either we delete them or we keep this. --Johnleemk 10:41, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • They are redirected now. If someone wants to revert that, they can, but it's not an issue for VfD which is why I've removed it from there. I redirected Nikon D70 as it had a vfd notice on it but I don't really mind whether it is kept as a merge with Nikon or reverted to its own page.Angela. 14:03, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Nikon_products&oldid=1079568049"