Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure digital camera

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 keep. Obviously no consensus for deletion; editorial decisions should be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure digital camera

No source besides the primary sources of Mohanty et al. can be found to support notability of the topic. It looks like just a vanity article (see Sarajumohanty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See talk page for more on sources examined. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty in finding sources and have added some to the article. The topic is clearly notable and we have to start somewhere. It is our editing policy that we improve such initial contributions rather than deleting them. Note also that the topic is of particular interest to Wikipedia as we currently do not seem to have any method of verifying that images are accurate and have not been altered or misrepresented. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden has shown that the topic is encyclopedic and that it should exist. That the article may have (most prob'ly!) started as a vanity piece is now moot. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid sourced fork from Digital Camera - that article is already very long. Springnuts (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Merge useful content and redirect to Digital watermarking as below. It is always possible to recreate a substantive article later if this specific topic becomes encyclopaedic. Springnuts (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can try to turn it into an article, but all we have really are primary sources by the coi author and a new one that Warden cited in supported of "Epson and Kodak have produced cameras with these features such as the Epson PhotoPC 3000Z and the Kodak DC-290. Both cameras added irremovable features to the pictures which distorted the original image, making them unacceptable for some applications such as forensic evidence in court." However, if you look at that source, it says those Epson and Kodak cameras are NOT what it is proposing as a secure digital camera. Is a proposal like this with no secondary commentary really enough to establish notability of a topic? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital watermarking. "Secure digital camera" is essentially a neologism to neatly describe a type of digital watermarking of images. Fences&Windows 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Digital watermarking is a weak article and there is currently a proposal to merge it into Watermark (data file), though that seems even worse. That would move the topic too far away from the essential point of this topic - that the security mechanism (which is not necessarily a watermark) is built-in to the camera. Note also that the field is fairly new and so all of these phrases are fairly new. I wouldn't call them neologisms though as there are no new words being used - just a variety of descriptive phrases which put existing words together in a fairly obvious way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the better, merging the three of them, we might put together enough reliably-sourced material to render a single article notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital watermarking, per WP:MERGE#Rationale #3 'Text' (particularly when the WP:OR 'Reasons for Use' section is removed) & #4 'Context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended addendum: removing the OR & the not-supported-by-citation material, we are left with two off-topic sections (one on cameras-that-aren't-SDCs & one on reversible data-hiding -- that is relevant to digital watermarking generally, rather than SDCs particularly) & Blythe's definition/proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge. The topic is encyclopedic, but is a minor branch which will unlikely develop into a sizable article. Digital watermarking seems fine for merging. I would also be careful with new announcements such as this one and mention them as "potential", "work in progress" or alike. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (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.