Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pentax K mount lenses


 * 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. I realise there wasn't a clear consensus, but merging this content back to Pentax K mount would make that article excessively long, and WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to Keep. Waltontalk 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Pentax K mount lenses

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this list is incomplete and arbitrary ("just a selection".. selected how?). The information included is trivial as there is no critical commentary or cultural context. If some of these lenses are very popular or notable in some other way, a short list of those with an explanation of why they are important would be appropriate in the main article, Pentax K mount. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I moved this content from the Pentax K mount article about a month ago to clear it up. I agree it is listcruft, and really doesn't serve much purpose. --Imroy 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My point of view - I and many other users of Pentax K mounted cameras have used this article as reference in searching and buying lenses. I think this is useful article! No hard feelings but this list is not selected, it is collected from the field and is as good as it gets at the moment, hopefully it gets even better in the future. --Bowsbows 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's useful is not a valid reason to keep an article. -- Kesh 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Pentax K again. 70.55.86.40 04:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Pentax K. Valuable research tool; encyclopedic. Fg2 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft. Move it to a Pentax K-centric site if it's so useful. Morgan Wick 19:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and make exhaustive. Instead of saying "it's useful", I'll say, "it's informative and appropriate". If we have lists of every episode TV shows, every paper published by certain academics, and every junction on certain highways, I don't see why a list of every lens for a certain mount is so wrong. Lists like this make Wikipedia more valuable, not less so. Where else on the web would you find such a thing? Stevage 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where the hell do we have "every paper published by certain academics"? In any case, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of "informative" information or a directory. I'm sure people would find a website on this information if they looked for it, and if it existed. After all, Wikipedia is not the entire World Wide Web. Morgan Wick 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just came across Suplex. I think we can safely conclude that no information is to trivial, random or off-topic to belong, so long as that article is deemed acceptable. Stevage 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Policy (which WP:NOT is) is not negotiable. Morgan Wick 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is: It's informative, appropriate, and enhances the encyclopaedia. Hence keep. But make it comprehensive. Apologies for the diversion. Stevage 03:13, 28 June 2007 (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.