Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polaroid Impulse

:{{la|Polaroid Impulse}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polaroid Impulse}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Polaroid Impulse}})

Note: The article Polaroid Land Camera 1000 is also included in this nomination.

Non-notable. These articles are about specific models of mass-market Polaroid SX-70 and 600 instant cameras. No one of the models of these types of cameras is really more notable than another. The Polaroid Impulse is just a specific model of Polaroid 600 camera. It is no more common or notable than the other Polaroid 600 cameras. And besides, the article is not even factually accurate. The body design of the Impulse is unique, not just a version of the Pronto SX-70 camera. In reality, the earlier (again, no more notable) Sun 600 cameras (and their derivatives) are truly based on the Pronto body design. Same goes for the "Polaroid Land Camera 1000" SX-70 camera(s). In reality, the 1000 was an international-markets version of the OneStep SX-70 camera. This article is also factually inaccurate. The Polaroid 1000 was not a series of cameras, and the OneStep, Pronto, etc. were not part of that series. These were cameras that, while similar, were distinct seperate models, not really part of one "series".

Now, after all that ranting and raving about why these articles aren't notable :-), here are some simple(r) details:

• The article List of Polaroid instant cameras already lists nearly all of the Polaroid cameras made, and that's all the mention these camera models need here on Wikipedia.
• These articles (and their pictures) were originally just copies of the articles on these cameras at Camerapedia. In my experience, Camerapedia's articles have lots of factual inaccuracies and mis-information (at least with Polaroid cameras). And, apparently, Wikipedia does not allow stuff to be copied from those other wikis like Camerapedia. Oh, and these articles were apparently created by a user from Camerapedia. These articles had been stubified, but that doesn't make them any more notable.
• These articles have been "nominated" before. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive630#Antique_AfD_discussion_needs_closing. The user had created the discussion page, but didn't even list it on AfD for people to see it. :−D

Anyway, this is a multi-page nomination (both pages have the same problems, basically). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep For a very widely known brand like Polaroid, probably each significant one of their camera models is notable. Where we draw the line is in individual minor variations, such as the three types listed for Polaroid Land Camera 1000. Camerapedia has been very widely used as a source in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps the best way of establishing its reliability would be to write a good article on it, with references to published criticism. We had a very short stub, deleted as an uncontested prod in 2006. Since prods can be restored on request, I've just restored it for expansion. Getting first some sourced information about it, and then if necessary discussing it at WP:RSN would seem a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the writers of Camerapedia try very hard indeed to get the facts right. Some subject areas of Camerapedia (such as Japanese folders, exemplified by [http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Six this article]) have content that is more informative and more reliable than what you'd find in published book on the same subject that would cost you actual money. Camerapedia is also much less vulnerable to vandalism and silliness than Wikipedia is. However, Camerapedia does not purport to be reliable, and as a whole is less reliable than published books. (I say this as an erstwhile contributor to Camerapedia who has the greatest respect for some of its contributors and articles.) And Camerapedia does encourage its contributors to do what WP forbids: the original research of examining and describing the gizmos sitting in front of them. ¶ Incidentally, DGG's innocuous phrase above "used as a source" can cover "mindlessly swiped". -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: There are dozens of Polaroid 600 camera models out there, of which the Impulse is only up to about 4 models (which 3 are virtually the same). Can you assert how any specific Polaroid camera model has enough notability and notable information to be mentioned in Wikipedia in anything other than the List of Polaroid instant cameras, which already lists these camera models and gives all the notable information these camera models need on Wikipedia?
  
  As for what Hoary said about Camerapedia, I agree. No wonder Camerapedia has those factual inaccuracies in their Polaroid articles, because they promote original research! Everyone has his/her own ideas, opinions, and beliefs about everything, and that's likely exactly why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, and all claims must be cited with reliable sources. As a collector of Polaroid cameras, in my opinion, the [http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm Land List] and the [http://www.instantoptions.com/landlist/ Option-al Land List] collector websites have much more accurate information in them. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Getting a bit off-topic here, but you write: No wonder Camerapedia has those factual inaccuracies in their Polaroid articles, because they promote original research! Everyone has his/her own ideas, opinions, and beliefs about everything, and that's likely exactly why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research [...] (my emphases). You're conflating two notions of "OR": (i) one in which "research" has its normal meaning, and (ii) the Wikipedia-specific "OR", in which "research" is a euphemism for "any old crap". Camerapedia encourages research, not the promulgation of ignorance. However, even the former would be prohibited by WP (and rightly so), while CP is a wiki and thus can't prevent the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:N: coverage at the referenced web sites is significant. I agree with the {{tl|Expand}} template, but that means improvement not deletion. patsw (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: If we keep the Polaroid Impulse and Polaroid Land Camera 1000 articles, then why don't we also create more Wikipedia articles on specific Polaroid models, say, the Polaroid Sun 660 Autofocus and Sun 640 cameras. After all, they were the very first two Polaroid 600 camera models, released in 1981. Surely these are no less notable than the Impulse, right? So, if we keep the Impulse article, why not create a bunch of other Polaroid 600 articles to go with it? Actually, it would be better to write a single article on all the 600 models, rather than articles on every single individual one. I don't think that collector websites (like the Land List) really make the cameras more notable. Note that there is an important difference between the Polaroid SX-70 and the Polaroid OneStep/1000 cameras. The SX-70 is a high-end folding SLR camera, and is very well known and loved by Polaroid enthusiasts. The OneStep/1000, however, is the low-end non-folding non-SLR fixed-focus version, and no more notable than a Polaroid 600.
  
  So I say we either Delete both articles, or Merge Polaroid Land Camera 1000 into Polaroid SX-70 and Merge Polaroid Impulse into a new article on all Polaroid 600 cameras, e.g. Polaroid 600 camera. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Comment What you raise is not a deletion discussion but a "how to organize information discussion". If there already was a merged article along the lines you propose, then this discussion of Polaroid Impulse would be more along the lines of already covered in XXX, but we have to make judgments about the articles as they are, not as we would like it to be, so this article should stay in place until editors involved in this space can reach a consensus on how best to organize this content. Deletion is not the remedy. patsw (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with article on SX-70. I just don't see this standing on its own. Figureofnine (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

: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.