Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony FE 16-35mm 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 no consensus. So Why 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM[edit]

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

Not notable device. Kindly see WP:MILL, WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I see no counter-argument to waiting for consensus. Samsara 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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 made by the nominator in this category is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 19:57, 12 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.