Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-magnified optic

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. czar 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-magnified optic[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant description/copy of three unrelated devices/articles under a WP:DICDEF derived from multiple WP:OR observations of a term. No WP:SIGCOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, WP:SYNTH, and ungrammatical, too. If anything it must be "non-magnifying". Lembit Staan (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete and (possibly) redirect to optics per nom. I will probably always vote to delete articles such as this, under What Wikipedia is Not. Like many other semi-scientific terms, it is not even well defined ("a sighting system which uses windows or optical lenses, but which does not magnify"). Whatever needs to be said of non-magnified objects (which, since WP is not a dictionary, is very, very little) should be said in optics. I do not believe any of the information there needs to be saved or merged. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.