Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non notable device among thousands of other devices. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue, or shopping brochure. Kindly see WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. — usernamekiran (talk)  10:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A counter argument has been made at Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Is there no end to this flood of nominations? Can you not wait for the consensus of the 15 or so you've already separately created? Samsara 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no counter-argument to waiting for consensus. Samsara 22:58, 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) 23:22, 11 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 made by the nominator in this category is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. In a world where 2.8/24-70mm 24x36mm-format zooms can be had for 100 USD, this 2200 USD lens is eons away from WP:MILL and WP:ENN. Stating it would be "a device among thousands" is untrue. This isn't a lens for a (D)SLR, but for a full-frame mirrorless cameras. Lenses in its class can be counted on one hand.
 * This is a high-performance lens by one of the established manufacturers of photographic equipment. It is discussed in dozens of photographic outlets. It is clearly notable.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep reviews in two reliable sources cited, therefore meets WP:GNG. I would suggest you hold off on further AfD nominations until you have made progress on your proposed reworking of notability criteria for these topics. Continuing these nominations is not going to help further your cause. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 21 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.