Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 2.8/18mm


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  01:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 2.8/18mm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. — usernamekiran (talk)  13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A non toxic article. Creator has created many useful articles on photographic equipment. If we start interpreting notability to the letter of the law for harmless and informative articles and sending all camera articles of this kind to AfD we'll have an avalanche. Could do with better sourcing but I see no compelling reason to delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * keep or merge Surely at worst there is an auitable merge for this. In general, except for a few of the most important lenses, it would seem better to have an article on the series. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Our nominator has not done the WP:Before checks. There are quite a few references online, including independent reliable substantial ones that result in WP:GNG being met for this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  06:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A counter argument has been made at Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It not even a decent lens. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 7 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) 23:19, 11 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.