Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Should have been speedy-deleted like all the other CN-E lens articles that were created by one user who either lifted or closely paraphrased from retail sites, but for some reason this one was saved because it wasn't "unambiguous". This is advertising, and not encyclopaedic, and too close to the source material for comfort. Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PARAPHRASE. ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm the user that made the page. As I said on your talk page, I didn't copy and paste. This isn't advertising (again, as I said on your talk page), I linked directly to the manufacturer in the references, and furthermore the red link to this lens' page had been there for a long time (I know because I was researching this lens almost a year ago). If this lens does not deserve an encyclopedia page, then that is fine, but many other lenses have their own page or have group pages. You are kinda back tracking now by saying "closely paraphrased" instead of copied but I followed the same pattern as the rest of the lens articles I found. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_50mm_lens#EF_50mm_f.2F1.2L_USM for the exact lens I was lifting off. At this point I don't even care. I didn't sign up to defend a page about a canon lens. So if you want to delete it that is fine with me, but then at least delete the links pointing to it, because otherwise this information will just be reposted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your red links on this page were deleted for copyright infringement/paraphrasing. This article is no different. Stop spamming.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet again you ignore what I've said. Something I've said MULTIPLE times. The red links were from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Cinema_EOS#Full_35_mm_2 so stop attacking me personally. I'm not spamming. I'm not claiming the red links that go to other pages I made. Like I said before on your user talk page where you invited me to discuss this, I just made these pages due to seeing that they were red on the Canon Cinema page. Stop mischaracterizing what I've done. At this point it seems you are intentionally distorting the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this page is not an orphan, even though you tagged it as such. Please see the (what are or would be) red links I pointed out on Canon Cinema EOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments. (i) At least in its current state, this doesn't look like advertising to me. (ii) The information that it supplies, if verifiable, is arguably encyclopedic. (After all, this encyclopedia does contain articles on one-off car prototypes, multiple ingredients of fictional "universes", etc.) (iii) In general, there's not much enthusiasm in WP for adding articles (even if well sourced) on individual consumer durables. Unless these are durables with large fanbases among young male North Americans. (iv) Camera-wiki.org actually welcomes articles on subjects such as this. (v) Jeebus that's a ridiculously (unless you're accustomed to Leica) expensive lens. (Suggestion: get a Sony α7 [or similar; I imagine that cameras such as this are about to emerge from other companies], an old Canon FD 85/1.2 in decent nick [cosmetics, internal dust, and even slight scratching on the front element won't matter], and an adapter to mate the two; and take a vacation for yourself and somebody with all the money you'll save.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.