Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma 19mm 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 keep.

While two editors claim the sources are not reliable, no further explanation was given. The fact that reliable sources often receive products from manufacturers to review and integrate options to buy such products alone does not disqualify a source from being independent, since this is and has always been standard practice. No current policy or guideline categorizes such reliable sources as non-independent just because of that. Receiving the product from the manufacturer might lead to a sources becoming non-independent, but that requires at least some proof that the source's coverage of the subject has been skewed by this. No such argument was made.

Arguments like "promotional", "not notable" or "Wikipedia is not paper" are not helpful in a discussion like this without further explanation. However, despite being challenged and two relists, none of those !voters explained why they thought the article was promotional or the subject not notable despite the sources provided. So Why 12:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN Art[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is a about a non-notable subject. The references included in the article are not reliable and a WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources for the article to meet the WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have since completed the article and included more notable third-party sources on the lens. Henceforth, I believe that the article conforms with the WP:GNG. Please contact me if any further edits are required. Chevy111 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the dxomark reference is independent and likely reliable enough. The DPREVIEW one just copied the manufacturer's description, so another independent review would be good to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional junk. WP:Not a list. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Can't find "promotional junk" in that article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines or in recent years in websites. Coincidentally, those same magazines often received ad revenue from the makers of the products they reviewed and the websites which reviewed camera products typically had "click to buy" or a "shopping" tab, making it questionable whether they are "independent." Edison (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument given at Wikipedia: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 15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @My very best wishes: I've clarified that this lens is the start of a new product line, and entry into a new market. If memory serves, this is the first time for Sigma Corporation to enter a new market in approximately a decade. This should also be mentioned in the Sigma Corporation article. Regards, Samsara 19:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We certainly should not list any "thing under the sun", but in Wikipedia we have an established practise to more closely keep track of product developments in some areas than in others. As pointed out further above already, we typically cover photographic lenses and cameras quite closely, in particular when produced by established manufacturers. They have encyclopedic value because they often have some unique properties or features, may mark some firsts, can have interesting optical formulas, and will likely become collectable items over time. And this applies to this series of lenses as well.

This particular lens is not a stellar-performance lens, but it is still notable for various reasons, including that it was the first dedicated third-party lens for Sony's then-still new E-mount, it was the starting point of a new series of Sigma lenses. Also, this article is not about this one lens only, but also about its successors (with same optical formula, but various other changes in design). The lens is discussed in form of announcements, reviews, hands-on reports, and technical tests in most photographic media, print and online, so it would be possible to throw dozens of WP:RS in to demonstrate significant independent coverage. However, the article already contains enough sources to establish this, more refs will probably be added over time.

Personally, I would like to see these articles to have more "flesh" and a much deeper coverage of the optical design and performance, but at least a starting point was made.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (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.