Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. — usernamekiran (talk)  13:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This should be kept on Wikipedia as it easily can achieve WP:GNG. There are numerous references available online including independent reviews and magazine appearances. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Two reviews are presented as references, but one of them, Digital Photography Review, is owned by Amazon and includes a click link to buy the lens at Amazon, so I discount it as pretty much a sales site. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which review camera products sell pages of advertising to the companies whose products they review. Therefore I discount their being "independent coverage" in some cases. Edison (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A counter argument has been made at Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family.  There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything.  Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation.  This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument given at Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms here is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what to call these sources, and "dependant" comes closest. Anyways, I still cant see why these devices are notable. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:57, 12 July 2017 (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.