Camera-wiki.org:Pages to be deleted

This page is a list of pages to be deleted. If you think that a page should be deleted, you can add it here, with the reason and your signature. In addition, you can put the following template on the page concerned: {{To be deleted|reason=Insert reason here}}.

Special:Shortpages

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Olympus_mju_300_Digital may be superfluous

All the pages with 0 bytes are great candidates for deletion. From what it looks like to me, most of these were created by spam-bots. --Lbstone 15:09, 31 January 2006 (EST)

What about all the "void" pages -- Olympus Auto, Olympus Wide, etc.? People will assume that they have some reason, however small, to click the blue links to them, click the links, and find nothing. It's a waste of their time. -- Hoary 01:30, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

OK, I will begin to delete them. --Rebollo fr 12:24, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

Good! -- Hoary 23:18, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

Olympus M1, Olympus OM1n, Olympus OM2, Olympus OM2n

Duplicate of Olympus M-1 (both are redirected to Olympus OM-1/2/3/4). Olympus M-1 is the correct name, Olympus M1 is not. Same story for OM1n, OM2, OM2n.
--Rebollo fr 11:05, 4 February 2006 (EST)

Http:/www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm

The page with this title is obviously a mistake. For some reason, I do not manage to insert a functioning link to it. --Rebollo fr 15:46, 30 January 2006 (EST)

I am unable to delete it. --Rebollo fr 16:25, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Two categories

Please delete Category: Japanese Digital and Category: Japanese Digital SLR. (I created both; I quickly replaced them with Category: Japanese digital and Category: Japanese digital SLR.) Thanks. -- Hoary 03:51, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

I just killed 'em. --Lbstone 04:22, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Thanks very much. And (irrelevantly), thank you for arranging things so that REF works: I'll be making good use of it very soon. Hoary 04:52, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Richter-Tharandt and Superfecta

I created the page Richter-Tharandt while Richter would be the correct name. Similarly, the category Richter now replaces the old Category Richter-Tharandt. Superfecta should be spelled with a K, so the original (now empty) page can be deleted. Please delete all three--driesvandenelzen 15:24, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Done. --Rebollo fr 15:46, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Pothof&Co and Montanus Kamerafabrik

Content of both articles was moved to Montanus Please delete these now empty pages.--driesvandenelzen 16:13, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

I deleted Pothoff&Co because of the typo but kept Montanus Kamerafabrik as a redirect to Montanus (not very useful but not harmful either). --Rebollo fr 17:51, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Germania Geheimkamera

Not a Richter, Tharandt camera. Please remove. Probably Ernemann or other maker. More sources needed. --driesvandenelzen 06:05, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Removed. I added a small footnote to the Richter for future record. --Rebollo fr 13:32, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Wikipedia

Not a camera, lens, or photographic process, and only dubiously meriting an article here. As it stands, this substub "Wikipedia" says next to nothing. There seems to be little or no chance that it will ever be rewritten to be anywhere near as informative or useful as [English] Wikipedia's own article on itself, which can very simply be linked to from an article here via the string "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia|]]". Articles in Camera-wiki.org that, like this, are risibly inferior to their equivalents within Wikipedia merely serve to cheapen Camera-wiki.org. -- Hoarier 22:39, 4 May 2011 (PDT)

Here is my edit to the page. It has the edit summary "Deletion request". Here is the next edit to the page, in which the creator of the page removes the deletion request, and provides no edit summary.

To me, it's obvious that (1) if you create an article and somebody else puts a deletion request on it, you leave the request where it is and let the discussion play out openly; and (2) if you are an administrator you provide edit summaries. -- Hoarier 15:04, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

Be bold

Not a camera, a lens, a photographic technique or similar, and therefore very obviously in the wrong namespace, just for starters. Quite aside from matters of phrasing (and capitalization) that can be attributed to the writer's effort in a foreign language, the way this is put across is extraordinarily confusing, and, if taken seriously, wasteful. The reader is encouraged to blunder, to think of changes and reversions as a game, and so forth. There's not the slightest hint that the bold blunderers should check their facts, let alone cite their sources, which all adds to the impression that they may boldly write from what they read in a discussion forum, or vaguely remember having heard on a TV program or while sitting on a barstool, or whatever. By contrast, the original page at Wikipedia is carefully written, distinguishing between articles on the one hand and categories, etc, on the other; no mention of any of that here, leading to my suspicion that the writer of this article hasn't even read and digested what he praises. Wikipedia (or its English version) also differs from Camera-wiki.org in various ways that seem to me to be pertinent here: the former is overseen by many more humans (not to mention bots) than the latter is, and new articles may not be created there by brand new accounts. ¶ Now, perhaps I should just be bold and rewrite this personal essay accordingly, but I cannot be bothered to do so; moreover, I'm not convinced that the Wikipedia "philosophy" would work well here even if it were articulated carefully. Having been courteous and invited the writer to move it to his own userspace while he works on it, and having seen this idea dismissed and the "article" not improve in the slightest, my bold move is to request deletion. Material such as this, which both misrepresents what Wikipedia says and provides an inferior version of it, would do a disservice to both websites even if it were in the appropriate namespace ("Camera-wiki.org"). If people here want to cite Wikipedia's far superior original they can do as simply as Wikipedia's "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold]]" or similar. -- Hoarier 23:09, 4 May 2011 (PDT)