Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker cameras

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Slon02 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walker cameras

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to lack notability as per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No WP:RS sources. The three cited are all from the company website. Am I missing something here? Let me know. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added four more sources. I suggest no deletion as they are the only supplier of pin hole cameras to Ilford Photo. A google search would support the notablity claim. --enock (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing only three independent sources out of the seven footnotes in the article now. One is a four minute review, one is a mere 66 words, and the third and most substantive, is only 403 words. None of these are about the Walker Cameras company, they're product reviews, and extremely trivial ones at that. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requires sustained, in-depth coverage, and it should actually be about this company. If you wanted to make an article about one of the company's products instead of the company, you would still come up short on sufficient sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.