Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras – No consensus, "delete" closure endorsed by default. Opinion is divided, with a majority endorsing the "delete" closure because it was unanimous, and a minority advocating relisting the AfD because the discussion was deemed deficient or because of broader concerns about whether and how Wikipedia should cover such content. As DRV closer, I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the AfD in a "no consensus" situation. In my view, a single AfD isn't helpful for addressing broader concerns about the scope of our coverage. Interested editors should instead start a RfC with specific proposals. If consensus is found at a guideline level, the article can be restored and improved as appropriate. Moreover, relisting because we don't like the outcome of an AfD seems a bit ultra vires to me: DRV is supposed to be a forum to review procedural issues with deletions, not a forum to relitigate a deletion on the merits. Relisting should be done, in my view, if we think that it could lead to a clearer consensus. That is not the case here. Finally, the fact that a majority here would endorse the closure is also to be considered. Sandstein 09:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I am new to Wikipedia (just made an account for this purpose) so apologies if I am going about this process incorrectly, but I was really disappointed when I tried to check the Comparison table this morning and found it was deleted. I figured out how to look at the reasons for deletion and I do not see why the Nikon page I mentioned (as well as Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras) have been deleted. As a photographer those pages are the best format for comparing the DSLRs of a single brand in one place. The discussion claimed "possible fancraft" and lacking third-party sources, but that misses the point of the TABLE format. I really do not understand why sources are even at issue when each model was linked to a dedicated page with all of that information included. The table format is what makes the page usable instead of individually drilling down to each camera and comparing manually. This page has been up since 2011 and deleting it seems to be a mistake. I think I speak for a lot of photographers who are going to be disappointed when they find this article has been removed. None of the information provided in a table format is controversial or disputed--these are technical details of cameras and I think it is a mistake to have deleted this page as well as the Canon table. Removing this page does not seem logical. I welcome feedback or help on what I need to do to try to get the page reinstated. Runnerphil712 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] The recent DRV for the Canon list, for reference. My opinion here's the same as it was there: sourcing this would be easy, but tedious. —Cryptic 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Is there a way to restore the page and just add the little banner that says it needs references or sources? I just feel that complete deletion was uncalled for for these comparison pages. I noticed there is a Comparison of digital SLRs page that has a reference column--if that is all that's required I don't see why those links couldn't just be added onto the brand specific pages. Note that that page is not as up to date as the Nikon/Canon dedicated pages. It just seems premature to delete the pages if they could be salvaged--and again, all the links to the individual model pages already contain the information mentioned in the table. —Runnerphil712 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] At a minimum the deleted articles could be provided to anyone who asks and they could recreate them on one of the fan wiki sites. I could probably help with that process (though not until next weekend). Hobit (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] (Non-administrator comment) @Runnerphil712: Articles are really intended to be for the benefit of one particular group of readers per se, but rather are intended to be written for the more general reader looking for encyclopedic information on the subject; so, the comment I think I speak for a lot of photographers who are going to be disappointed when they find this article has been removed. does seem a bit concerning, at least to me, and gives the impression that this article is intended more for "fans" than a typical reader. There are various WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia that may be more suitable to hosting such content that might not have as many (if any) policies and guidelines related to the types of content they allow as well as with respect to things like citing reliable sources, etc. Such sites might even allow more editorial control by content creators, than Wikipedia does per WP:OWN and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and there may be less of an obligation to seek WP:CONSENSUS when there are disagreements over content, etc. I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the article anymore, but they way you're describing and the way it was described in the AfD discussion does make it seem like something that probably isn't going to be allowed per WP:NOT. Side-by-side product comparisons, even in table format, seem more like some kind of "buyer's guide" or "consumer's report" that probably aren't really suitable for a stand-alone article just for that purpose alone. Maybe there are ways to incorporate such information into other articles (supported by citations) so that it seems more encyclopedic than a WP:NOTDIR type of article? I'm sure you can find other articles similar to the one that was deleted, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean they should exist or that any more like them should exist as explained in WP:OSE. There are over six million article now and not all of them go through or went through WP:AFC to be assessed before being moved to or created in the WP:MAINSPACE. Many articles created years ago simply go by unnoticed, until someone actually comes along and assesses them, and that sometimes means nominating the article for deletion. I don't see anything technically wrong with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras that indicates the closing administrator acted inappropriately (e.g. WP:SUPERVOTE) and the close does seem to reflect consensus of the discussion. If others feel it should be restored so that it can be WP:RELISTed, then that's fine; however, simply tagging it with a maintenance template like ((More citations needed)) or even adding citations doesn't seem to address the main issue (i.e. WP:NOT) raised during the AfD by those who commented. It also would seem a good idea to notify those who did comment at the AfD of this DRV (even if only done so as a courtesy) because they might be able to further clarify what they perceived as problems with the article and may even be able to offer an opinion on whether there's a way to somehow save any of the content contained in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse for one-and-one-half reasons. First, there was no error by the closer. With multiple Deletes, that was the right close. Second, one of the editors says that there were no sources in the article. I haven't seen the article, so that is only half a reason, but that supports deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Except for blps, being unsourced is not, and has never been, a reason for deletion. Being unsourceable is. And this list was neither. (I'll grant that the sources already in it were primary, quite poor even for primary sources, and covered a totally inadequate amount of the list.) —Cryptic 21:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Runnerphil712: the thing to understand is that we're an encyclopedia, and as such, we have criteria for what kinds of articles we are going to host, and what kinds we're not. Just because something is useful, or interesting, or popular, doesn't mean it belongs here. On the other hand, as Hobit noted above, everything that's published here, even if it's ultimately deleted, is liberally licensed. There may well be other sites that would be happy to host a copy of the deleted article, and there's absolutely no objection from the wikipedia side to them doing so, as long as proper attribution is made. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Marchjuly: I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the purity of Wikipedia--and do not mean to offend anyone since everyone here knows much more about the mission of the site than I do. But I see no issue with a table that puts information in an easier to use format. I would consider it equivalent to an index or table of contents. Honestly, the main group of people who are likely to be looking at camera related pages or tables are probably photographers (or aspiring photographers). I don't think helpful pages should be deleted just because a certain admin or user thinks the format goes against the rules when it makes things much easier to read and use. It seems wholly inconsistent to remove one such list/comparison page when there are a ton still out there--there needs to be a general consensus regarding all or nothing, instead of cherrypicked deletion of the two top camera brands (I refer you to the Canon page AfD discussion referenced previously). The beauty of an online encyclopedia is its accessibility—that you can see things quickly in one space (as those table pages do) instead of flipping through pages and pages to get the same information. Here's a link(hopefully works) of the format from the Wayback Machine archive for those who can't see. That's another reason I think the page should be reinstated--I don't really understand what the fatal flaw is on sourcing--tables are not conducive to exhaustive sourcing when the main page has those sources instead. The deletion just seems to be a technicality that would then require deletion of many similar table or comparison pages from the site. And for the comments on "product comparison"--I think that is a different animal. Other sites allow you to compare cameras, but this page was the only one I have found that had specifications in a simple, and friendly format absent editorializing (which is what encyclopedias do). Maybe the term "comparison" is too scary--"list" is just as appropriate. I've read through what "Wikipedia is not" and still do not understand what the issue is with this page and others like it. I did notify the original user who deleted the article (although given my novice Wiki skills--not sure if I did that right--posted the deletion review on their talk page). I thank everyone for their comments! —Runnerphil712 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as an unrepresentative discussion -- and a failure to consider sourceable , as opposed to sourced, or, at the very least Relist both this and the one Canon for a more general discussion. this sort of list is the vary nature of how to present tabular comparative data. NOT catalog applies only to much greater details than this the sort of specific model number variation that is of interest only to collectors and specialists, , and, primarily, to those dealing only with currently available products, --and, just for comparison, consider what WP would be like if we applied the same criteria to automobiles and cell phones. What makes WP such a greater resource than conventional encyclopedias is thissort of detail , this encyclopedic detail. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] I've temp undeleted the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse unanimous AfD with no obvious flaws in the argument with a very similar, and essentially the exact same article (with a different brand) to a recently closed AfD/DRV. I'm relatively sympathetic to the argument we have comparison charts for other random items like iPhones, but perhaps those need to go as well? SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- With multiple policy based elete votes and nobody arguing to keep the article, this was clearly the correct close. Reyk _YO! 06:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] The closer's actions cannot be faulted; the discussion was unanimous and must be endorsed. However, I would relist for similar reasons to DGG, that the discussion was unrepresentative and may have come to a bad conclusion. It referred, for example, to WP:SYN as a reason for deletion, but fell into the common SYN trap: it only applies when someone uses multiple sources to come to a conclusion not mentioned in the sources, not merely using multiple sources at once. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm with Stifle, DGG and Cryptic. Although I don't strictly disagree with the close given the AfD, that was an unusual outcome. With outliers such as this, there's scope for the DRV closer to use their discretion to relist, if they're so minded.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, but.... My first thought upon reading DGG's comment was, "How can this be unrepresentitive, if the very similar Canon AfD just closed with the exact same result?" The answer to that, of course, is that the two AfDs were attended by almost exactly the same set of people. And while, by today's standards, both of these were well attended, today's standards are that 3 or 4 people is enough, and that's questionable. The real question is not whether to endorse the AfDs; they were both unanimous, so there's really no alternative. But maybe the right thing is to take a step back and have a discussion about what we expect for "Comparison of Foos" type lists, and socialize that widely to get broad input. We have tons of these. Not just comparing cameras, but cars, phones, chess players, web software, bank accounts and so on. Some of them are extremely well referenced. Some, like the two in question here, are completely unreferenced and implicitly depend on the references indirectly included via the linked-to articles. Most are somewhere in between. A clear statement of what we need (WP:NCOMPARISON maybe?) would help. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] There's something else I've been thinking. Most AfDs are trivial, whether an articles that clearly dosn't meet the current standards, or a nomination from someone who doesn't understand that something does meet our standards--and in either case, a few particpants are enough. . Sometimes there's an afd that involves a serious real world issue, usually political, and that gets a lot of people commenting. But sometimes there are AfDs like these, which involve important articles but which may not be watched, or articles whose deletion is going to be used as a precedent, and there should be some way of getting them better attended. I am going to say for now, that this result is indeed an important error by the closer.. They should have realized that this is an important afd, and relisted it themselves. But we need some more systematic way of handling this. I suggest the most systematic way is to expand DelRev (or call it something else) to deal with important possibly incorrect wrong results--to establish a second level when the article gets deleted. After all, we have a second level when it gets kept--renomination. Not everything kept gets renominated, only those that someone thingsareworth the trouble, because a second keep these days makes it much harder to ever get deleted. We should have something like this too. Without it, the procedure is unbalanced and unfair. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) ,[reply] DGG, I get what you're saying, but in this case, both Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras and Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras had zero references. WP:V is about as fundamental as it gets. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] as with many lists, isn't it mainly just a question of copying them over from theoriginal articles, nd possible aneedd to fil in some gaps? Thecriterion isverifiable, not verified. `` The burden to add verifiable information is clearly on the editor adding the information, not a closer whose job it is to close a discussion. The AfD closer didn't err here, and the right thing to do if the closer had thought these discussions were off the mark would be to vote noting the issue. Not every AfD closer is an expert in the topic matter of the subjects they close and I would argue it's actually better to have someone close an AfD who doesn't know much about the topic, as they will be less likely to supervote. I see absolutely nothing wrong on the closer's end. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] I think finding and adding sources is everyone's job. People who write articles are meant to do it; people who improve articles are meant to do it; XfD nominators are meant to do it as part of WP:BEFORE; and I'm not aware of any rule or guideline exempting discussion closers from doing it either.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist as Per DGG. I agree with the comments of DGG, S Marshall, and RoySmith above. I think we need a more general discussion, perhaps a formal RfC, to clarify or set policy for having these sorts of articles. I think the "only of interest to photographers" is the wrong way to look at this. Many of our articles, parti9cularlyu our more technical articles, are mostly of interest to, people who already know the topic to some extent. This is true of most of the mathematics articles that are beyond basic math -- I find a fair number over my head, and i have a math and physics background. The same can be said for many other more-or-less technical fields. I thimnk this sort of comparison article should ,be OK, if NPOV and if properly sourced. I find the commetns of Runnerphil712, although not strictly based in Wikipedia policy, to make common sense, or they would if the article were properly sourced. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse these pages did not have any references and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. CrazyBoy 826 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I understand the utility of such pages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place for them. Closure was appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Again I appreciate the discussion. It sounds like the consensus is trending against Overturn, but I agree that this is a larger issue than this single article. It still seems unfair to me to target this specific article in this specific format for deletion. Sources CAN be added, as has been mentioned, given that this information is all pulled from individually sourced articles. My question--why can't the article be restored with sources added. If closure is appropriate for this article (putting aside the sourcing issue--which can be remedied), are we basically saying that the table format on Wikipedia is of no merit? As others have stated, there are all kinds of similar lists / comparison tables on the platform, and until there is a global policy change outlawing them, this cherrypicked deletion approach appears lacking and the wrong decision. I would Relist both this and the Canon article, with the banner requiring sources. Runnerphil712 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Runnerphil712: I'm sure you meant no harm, but the convention is that a given user should use the bold styling just once in a discussion, to unambiguously declare their intent. Bolding the words overturn and relist here might be double-counted by the closer if they don't notice that you also nominated this, and are thus implicitly arguing to overturn. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] @RoySmith: Thanks--I'll plead my novice wiki user status. I've removed the bold. Runnerphil712 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] I think that the AfD is wrong in that the arguments made (SYNTH, PROMO) don't reflect the article. The article is unsourced, but definitely sourceable; on the other hand the sources probably don't cover the category as a whole. Would the list exempt as primarily navigational? Or would it be considered simply listcruft? The AfD didn't really discuss that. Endorse, but restore to draft would be my suggestion. Whether we should expand WP:LISTN via RfC, I don't know. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras – No consensus, "delete" closure endorsed by default. Opinion is divided, with a majority endorsing the "delete" closure because it was unanimous, and a minority advocating relisting the AfD because the discussion was deemed deficient or because of broader concerns about whether and how Wikipedia should cover such content.

As DRV closer, I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the AfD in a "no consensus" situation. In my view, a single AfD isn't helpful for addressing broader concerns about the scope of our coverage. Interested editors should instead start a RfC with specific proposals. If consensus is found at a guideline level, the article can be restored and improved as appropriate. Moreover, relisting because we don't like the outcome of an AfD seems a bit ultra vires to me: DRV is supposed to be a forum to review procedural issues with deletions, not a forum to relitigate a deletion on the merits. Relisting should be done, in my view, if we think that it could lead to a clearer consensus. That is not the case here. Finally, the fact that a majority here would endorse the closure is also to be considered. Sandstein 09:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am new to Wikipedia (just made an account for this purpose) so apologies if I am going about this process incorrectly, but I was really disappointed when I tried to check the Comparison table this morning and found it was deleted. I figured out how to look at the reasons for deletion and I do not see why the Nikon page I mentioned (as well as Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras) have been deleted. As a photographer those pages are the best format for comparing the DSLRs of a single brand in one place. The discussion claimed "possible fancraft" and lacking third-party sources, but that misses the point of the TABLE format. I really do not understand why sources are even at issue when each model was linked to a dedicated page with all of that information included. The table format is what makes the page usable instead of individually drilling down to each camera and comparing manually. This page has been up since 2011 and deleting it seems to be a mistake. I think I speak for a lot of photographers who are going to be disappointed when they find this article has been removed.

None of the information provided in a table format is controversial or disputed--these are technical details of cameras and I think it is a mistake to have deleted this page as well as the Canon table. Removing this page does not seem logical. I welcome feedback or help on what I need to do to try to get the page reinstated. Runnerphil712 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent DRV for the Canon list, for reference. My opinion here's the same as it was there: sourcing this would be easy, but tedious. —Cryptic 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to restore the page and just add the little banner that says it needs references or sources? I just feel that complete deletion was uncalled for for these comparison pages. I noticed there is a Comparison of digital SLRs page that has a reference column--if that is all that's required I don't see why those links couldn't just be added onto the brand specific pages. Note that that page is not as up to date as the Nikon/Canon dedicated pages. It just seems premature to delete the pages if they could be salvaged--and again, all the links to the individual model pages already contain the information mentioned in the table. —Runnerphil712 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum the deleted articles could be provided to anyone who asks and they could recreate them on one of the fan wiki sites. I could probably help with that process (though not until next weekend). Hobit (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) @Runnerphil712: Articles are really intended to be for the benefit of one particular group of readers per se, but rather are intended to be written for the more general reader looking for encyclopedic information on the subject; so, the comment I think I speak for a lot of photographers who are going to be disappointed when they find this article has been removed. does seem a bit concerning, at least to me, and gives the impression that this article is intended more for "fans" than a typical reader. There are various WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia that may be more suitable to hosting such content that might not have as many (if any) policies and guidelines related to the types of content they allow as well as with respect to things like citing reliable sources, etc. Such sites might even allow more editorial control by content creators, than Wikipedia does per WP:OWN and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and there may be less of an obligation to seek WP:CONSENSUS when there are disagreements over content, etc.
I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the article anymore, but they way you're describing and the way it was described in the AfD discussion does make it seem like something that probably isn't going to be allowed per WP:NOT. Side-by-side product comparisons, even in table format, seem more like some kind of "buyer's guide" or "consumer's report" that probably aren't really suitable for a stand-alone article just for that purpose alone. Maybe there are ways to incorporate such information into other articles (supported by citations) so that it seems more encyclopedic than a WP:NOTDIR type of article? I'm sure you can find other articles similar to the one that was deleted, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean they should exist or that any more like them should exist as explained in WP:OSE. There are over six million article now and not all of them go through or went through WP:AFC to be assessed before being moved to or created in the WP:MAINSPACE. Many articles created years ago simply go by unnoticed, until someone actually comes along and assesses them, and that sometimes means nominating the article for deletion. I don't see anything technically wrong with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras that indicates the closing administrator acted inappropriately (e.g. WP:SUPERVOTE) and the close does seem to reflect consensus of the discussion. If others feel it should be restored so that it can be WP:RELISTed, then that's fine; however, simply tagging it with a maintenance template like ((More citations needed)) or even adding citations doesn't seem to address the main issue (i.e. WP:NOT) raised during the AfD by those who commented. It also would seem a good idea to notify those who did comment at the AfD of this DRV (even if only done so as a courtesy) because they might be able to further clarify what they perceived as problems with the article and may even be able to offer an opinion on whether there's a way to somehow save any of the content contained in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for one-and-one-half reasons. First, there was no error by the closer. With multiple Deletes, that was the right close. Second, one of the editors says that there were no sources in the article. I haven't seen the article, so that is only half a reason, but that supports deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for blps, being unsourced is not, and has never been, a reason for deletion. Being unsourceable is. And this list was neither. (I'll grant that the sources already in it were primary, quite poor even for primary sources, and covered a totally inadequate amount of the list.) —Cryptic 21:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Runnerphil712: the thing to understand is that we're an encyclopedia, and as such, we have criteria for what kinds of articles we are going to host, and what kinds we're not. Just because something is useful, or interesting, or popular, doesn't mean it belongs here. On the other hand, as Hobit noted above, everything that's published here, even if it's ultimately deleted, is liberally licensed. There may well be other sites that would be happy to host a copy of the deleted article, and there's absolutely no objection from the wikipedia side to them doing so, as long as proper attribution is made. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the purity of Wikipedia--and do not mean to offend anyone since everyone here knows much more about the mission of the site than I do. But I see no issue with a table that puts information in an easier to use format. I would consider it equivalent to an index or table of contents. Honestly, the main group of people who are likely to be looking at camera related pages or tables are probably photographers (or aspiring photographers). I don't think helpful pages should be deleted just because a certain admin or user thinks the format goes against the rules when it makes things much easier to read and use. It seems wholly inconsistent to remove one such list/comparison page when there are a ton still out there--there needs to be a general consensus regarding all or nothing, instead of cherrypicked deletion of the two top camera brands (I refer you to the Canon page AfD discussion referenced previously). The beauty of an online encyclopedia is its accessibility—that you can see things quickly in one space (as those table pages do) instead of flipping through pages and pages to get the same information. Here's a link(hopefully works) of the format from the Wayback Machine archive for those who can't see. That's another reason I think the page should be reinstated--I don't really understand what the fatal flaw is on sourcing--tables are not conducive to exhaustive sourcing when the main page has those sources instead. The deletion just seems to be a technicality that would then require deletion of many similar table or comparison pages from the site. And for the comments on "product comparison"--I think that is a different animal. Other sites allow you to compare cameras, but this page was the only one I have found that had specifications in a simple, and friendly format absent editorializing (which is what encyclopedias do). Maybe the term "comparison" is too scary--"list" is just as appropriate. I've read through what "Wikipedia is not" and still do not understand what the issue is with this page and others like it. I did notify the original user who deleted the article (although given my novice Wiki skills--not sure if I did that right--posted the deletion review on their talk page). I thank everyone for their comments! —Runnerphil712 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as an unrepresentative discussion -- and a failure to consider sourceable , as opposed to sourced, or, at the very least Relist both this and the one Canon for a more general discussion. this sort of list is the vary nature of how to present tabular comparative data. NOT catalog applies only to much greater details than this the sort of specific model number variation that is of interest only to collectors and specialists, , and, primarily, to those dealing only with currently available products, --and, just for comparison, consider what WP would be like if we applied the same criteria to automobiles and cell phones. What makes WP such a greater resource than conventional encyclopedias is thissort of detail , this encyclopedic detail. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've temp undeleted the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unanimous AfD with no obvious flaws in the argument with a very similar, and essentially the exact same article (with a different brand) to a recently closed AfD/DRV. I'm relatively sympathetic to the argument we have comparison charts for other random items like iPhones, but perhaps those need to go as well? SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- With multiple policy based elete votes and nobody arguing to keep the article, this was clearly the correct close. Reyk _YO! 06:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The closer's actions cannot be faulted; the discussion was unanimous and must be endorsed. However, I would relist for similar reasons to DGG, that the discussion was unrepresentative and may have come to a bad conclusion. It referred, for example, to WP:SYN as a reason for deletion, but fell into the common SYN trap: it only applies when someone uses multiple sources to come to a conclusion not mentioned in the sources, not merely using multiple sources at once. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Stifle, DGG and Cryptic. Although I don't strictly disagree with the close given the AfD, that was an unusual outcome. With outliers such as this, there's scope for the DRV closer to use their discretion to relist, if they're so minded.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but.... My first thought upon reading DGG's comment was, "How can this be unrepresentitive, if the very similar Canon AfD just closed with the exact same result?" The answer to that, of course, is that the two AfDs were attended by almost exactly the same set of people. And while, by today's standards, both of these were well attended, today's standards are that 3 or 4 people is enough, and that's questionable.

The real question is not whether to endorse the AfDs; they were both unanimous, so there's really no alternative. But maybe the right thing is to take a step back and have a discussion about what we expect for "Comparison of Foos" type lists, and socialize that widely to get broad input. We have tons of these. Not just comparing cameras, but cars, phones, chess players, web software, bank accounts and so on. Some of them are extremely well referenced. Some, like the two in question here, are completely unreferenced and implicitly depend on the references indirectly included via the linked-to articles. Most are somewhere in between. A clear statement of what we need (WP:NCOMPARISON maybe?) would help. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's something else I've been thinking. Most AfDs are trivial, whether an articles that clearly dosn't meet the current standards, or a nomination from someone who doesn't understand that something does meet our standards--and in either case, a few particpants are enough. . Sometimes there's an afd that involves a serious real world issue, usually political, and that gets a lot of people commenting. But sometimes there are AfDs like these, which involve important articles but which may not be watched, or articles whose deletion is going to be used as a precedent, and there should be some way of getting them better attended. I am going to say for now, that this result is indeed an important error by the closer.. They should have realized that this is an important afd, and relisted it themselves. But we need some more systematic way of handling this.

I suggest the most systematic way is to expand DelRev (or call it something else) to deal with important possibly incorrect wrong results--to establish a second level when the article gets deleted. After all, we have a second level when it gets kept--renomination. Not everything kept gets renominated, only those that someone thingsareworth the trouble, because a second keep these days makes it much harder to ever get deleted. We should have something like this too. Without it, the procedure is unbalanced and unfair. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) ,[reply]

DGG, I get what you're saying, but in this case, both Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras and Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras had zero references. WP:V is about as fundamental as it gets. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as with many lists, isn't it mainly just a question of copying them over from theoriginal articles, nd possible aneedd to fil in some gaps? Thecriterion isverifiable, not verified. ``

The burden to add verifiable information is clearly on the editor adding the information, not a closer whose job it is to close a discussion. The AfD closer didn't err here, and the right thing to do if the closer had thought these discussions were off the mark would be to vote noting the issue. Not every AfD closer is an expert in the topic matter of the subjects they close and I would argue it's actually better to have someone close an AfD who doesn't know much about the topic, as they will be less likely to supervote. I see absolutely nothing wrong on the closer's end. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think finding and adding sources is everyone's job. People who write articles are meant to do it; people who improve articles are meant to do it; XfD nominators are meant to do it as part of WP:BEFORE; and I'm not aware of any rule or guideline exempting discussion closers from doing it either.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist as Per DGG. I agree with the comments of DGG, S Marshall, and RoySmith above. I think we need a more general discussion, perhaps a formal RfC, to clarify or set policy for having these sorts of articles. I think the "only of interest to photographers" is the wrong way to look at this. Many of our articles, parti9cularlyu our more technical articles, are mostly of interest to, people who already know the topic to some extent. This is true of most of the mathematics articles that are beyond basic math -- I find a fair number over my head, and i have a math and physics background. The same can be said for many other more-or-less technical fields. I thimnk this sort of comparison article should ,be OK, if NPOV and if properly sourced. I find the commetns of Runnerphil712, although not strictly based in Wikipedia policy, to make common sense, or they would if the article were properly sourced. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse these pages did not have any references and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. CrazyBoy 826 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I understand the utility of such pages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place for them. Closure was appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again I appreciate the discussion. It sounds like the consensus is trending against Overturn, but I agree that this is a larger issue than this single article. It still seems unfair to me to target this specific article in this specific format for deletion. Sources CAN be added, as has been mentioned, given that this information is all pulled from individually sourced articles. My question--why can't the article be restored with sources added. If closure is appropriate for this article (putting aside the sourcing issue--which can be remedied), are we basically saying that the table format on Wikipedia is of no merit? As others have stated, there are all kinds of similar lists / comparison tables on the platform, and until there is a global policy change outlawing them, this cherrypicked deletion approach appears lacking and the wrong decision. I would Relist both this and the Canon article, with the banner requiring sources. Runnerphil712 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Runnerphil712: I'm sure you meant no harm, but the convention is that a given user should use the bold styling just once in a discussion, to unambiguously declare their intent. Bolding the words overturn and relist here might be double-counted by the closer if they don't notice that you also nominated this, and are thus implicitly arguing to overturn. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks--I'll plead my novice wiki user status. I've removed the bold. Runnerphil712 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the AfD is wrong in that the arguments made (SYNTH, PROMO) don't reflect the article. The article is unsourced, but definitely sourceable; on the other hand the sources probably don't cover the category as a whole. Would the list exempt as primarily navigational? Or would it be considered simply listcruft? The AfD didn't really discuss that. Endorse, but restore to draft would be my suggestion. Whether we should expand WP:LISTN via RfC, I don't know. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.