Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon d20

Canon d20 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Looks like advertisement to me. As least it's contents isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Aenar 22:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Even if this is a spoof, it looks as though it advertises a product. There is no need even to Google it, it is not encyclopedic. Dieter Simon 23:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete, blatant ad/product spec. Shane King 23:49, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not a spoof at all -- my best friend (a professional photographer) just bought one of these. --jpgordon{gab} 23:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously an ad, probably a copyvio'd ad.. Nadavspi | talk 01:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D It doesn't even say how many rolls you get out of it before it wears down. Chris 02:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Spam. (And baked beans are off.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Technical details only don't make an article. If this camera were something other than an incremental improvement on previous models then it might warrant an article, but otherwise not. Average Earthman 09:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a catalogue. --Improv 17:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - errr, this appears to be a perfectly valid camera. Whats wrong with having an article on it? Granted the text there is poor, but it could be improved.
- Oops... hold on, Canon EOS-20D and is well done. In that case, Canon d20 should either be deleted, orperhaps better just become a redirect.

Redirect. They're (even) cheap(er). [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obvious case for a redirect —siro χ o 23:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Advert. Delete, redirect. Well written, though. --L33tminion 18:16, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK, I have made the page a redirect and (therefore) removed the VFD note from the page. Should this discussion just be removed?

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.