Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens


 * 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 to delete, default to keep.  Despite a clear "keep" majority, some "keep"s are of the weak WP:EVERYTHING and WP:GHITS type.  Sandstein  19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article doesn't assert and there doesn't appear to be evidence that this is in any way a notable camera lens. Ghits are mainly locations it can be purchased with no evidence of any significant reviews other than personal blogs. Wikipedia is not a camera guide or a HowTo, this is far too detailed for an encyclopedic article and I'm not sure that a re-direct to Sigma Corporation would be appropriate as I highly doubt this as a search term. Talk to Carithe Busy Bee 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment With the amount of Google-spam produced by people trying to sell equipment like this, it's become increasingly hard to find real content about products by Googling for them. The real articles get lost in the spam noise. I don't think, therefore, that it's valid to use lack of finding useful content on Google to support a deletion.  As to the rest, I'll see if I can find any details.  However, the full name of a lens is a valid search term so I'd keep this as a redirect at least. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, Keep. Sourced to one third-party review (ephotozine) and the manufacturer's website.  Wikipedia can be a specialist encyclopedia as well as a general one, and an encyclopedia of camera equipment would probably include this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid product which clearly exists. Need more articles like it. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge There are reviews on essentially all lenses, and i do not think that this is enough. Looking at comparable product lines, there is a redirect from Canon New FD 200mm f/2.8) to Canon FD 200 mm lens where a number are listed, giving in each case a description of the key features  and a reference--these probably should be supplemented by references to product reviews. There may be a few pathbreaking ones where a separate article is appropriate--I see no evidence this is one. WP is not a product catalog. DGG (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no reason to delete it whatsoever.  a s e nine  say what?  09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable product. Google for "Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro" gives 28,900 hits. Most of those are shops. On the first page result we see amazon.com, shopping.com, adorama.com (a large retailer specialize in camera). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sure, and Adorama will also have a listing for all of its 10,000 other products. Amazon and other store catalog listings do not establish notability. that reason is actually a good explanation of why we delete articles like this. We are not an advertising medium. DGG (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (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.