Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm

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. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is appropriate for Wikipedia as it easily can achieve WP:GNG. There are numerous references available online including independent reviews and magazine appearances. Examples from run of the mill includes identical looking houses, not things that are written about and have publications on them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Kindly do not take evey word by editors, or wikipedia essays at its literal meaning. We are humans, and we should use logic. For your statements above: Wikipedia is not a catalog. Also, for "can achieve notability": WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Can achieve" means that the references are available right now to add. It is not that we have to wait for a year for people to write about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: okay, just one doubt: What is so notable about it that it should be included in an encyclopaedia? —usernamekiran(talk) 04:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on the number of references available. THere is substantial coverage.

@Graeme Bartlett: All the "coverage" comes from the websites that has a living based on the coverage of such devices. It is the job of these websites to cover all the devices. That makes the device fail WP:SIGCOV, and "independent sources". I doubt if you saw "what wikipedia is not". For your nature of wiki lawyering, and bureaucracy: kindly see #5 under WP:NOTCATALOGUE. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: forgot to ping in previous comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product which is offered for sale. One reference is provided, but it amounts to a mere advertisement, since it includes click links where you can buy the lens. Most lenses and cameras which have been offered for sale in the last hundred years or so have had some reviews in photo magazines. Coincidentally, those same magazines which reviewed camera products sold pages of advertising to the companies whose products they reviewed. Today these pricey gadgets all get a bit of coverage at sites which get revenue from sellers when readers click on the link. Therefore I discount their being "independent coverage." Edison (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge in Sony FE — WP:NOTDIRECTORY. May perhaps merit a mention in a more general article about the product family. There are sites and magazines dedicated to such merchandise which will advertize every product, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should cover pioneering devices and technology but not catalog everything. Think about what people will be looking for in an encyclopedia in 20 years from now; they will expect coverage of but the most notable products, those which pioneered innovations and influenced a generation. This will also result in complete articles which have much to say rather than many stubs. —Paleo Neonate - 15:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing consensus. All photographic lenses from major manufacturers receive significant coverage in technical literature, including printed magazines and respected web publications. The printed material is sometimes more extensive and detailed, and because of the business models of such publications, usually not available free of charge on the web, at least not legally. The nomination of such stubs happens about once every two years or so; the articles are invariably improved and kept. Rather try to improve the articles than nominate them here. The 135mm Batis has coverage, including technical tests, e.g. here and here, and well-articulated editorials such as [1]. Print publications are much quicker at publishing reviews - due to extensive commercial pressure in that market, they usually do so within two months of the release, if not announcement, of a new lens. Here is an example of an announcement of a print review. In web publications, there is usually significant coverage by 12 months, although new detailed reviews may continue to appear for up to five years. It would therefore be unwise for us to limit our source review to web publications only, but they should not be ignored, either. Samsara 14:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you'll probably get a lot more hits if you don't use the full product name:

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

(There is only one product called "Batis" with a 135mm focal length so far.) Samsara 14:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Samsara: Hi. I apologise for the flooding, it wasnt my intention. When I saw these multiple articles, I gave it a thorough thought before even the first nomination. I not only searched for the sources, but I read multiple policies that I was already familiar with. I based my nomination not on one particular policy, but it is based on the summary/rundown/essence of multiple policies/guidelines. For the consensus, it can change. Given the current circumstances, it should change (not this multiple AfDs situation).

Basically, all the policies boil down to one simple statement: "to establish the notability of the subject, the subject should have been discussed in multiple sources, which independant of the subject; these sources should reliable as well". Talking about the sources you described (not the sources you provided), none of them are independent of photography and/or cameras. The sources you provided include "e photo zine", "amateur photographer", "SLR lounge", and "foto magazin". These are subject dependant sources. I am not talking about the reliability of the sources, but it is the job of these sources to discuss about our subject (cameras, camera lenses, photography). They obviously cover almost every device manufactured in recent past. But I dont see why these devices are notable enough to have a stand-alone article in an encyclopaedia.

As mentioned in the first paragraph, I based the nomination on summary of multiple guidelines. We should use plain logic here instead of following policies/guidelines to the letter. If we dont do that, wikipedia will soon have an article for every mobile that was launched in recent past; effectively turning wikipedia in catalogue/shopping brochure. And wikipedia is not a catalogue. Firthermore, notability is not temporary, and it does not degrade over time. This set of articles also fails WP:SNOWFLAKE as the subjects do not have enough significance currently, and probably they will never have. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:32, 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) 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pschemp: I am aware I use the term "dependant of subject" incorrectly, thats why I explain it first whenver I use the term in such context. I dont know whats the correct term that I am looking for. "Dependant of subject" is the closest one. Anyways, I still cant see why these devices are notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare to Intel CPUs for instance. The socket sizes and the architectures/cores usually have an article, the CPUs themselves are usually listed in stats tables in larger articles. These lense articles are mostly similar statistics which could also be a table inside mount (or perhaps even higher level) articles (i.e. in this case, Sony FE mount)... —Paleo Neonate - 12:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that you read at least an introductory text on optical design. The process is not at all comparable to "stats tables" for CPUs. In the range from wide angle to mild tele, each lens requires a completely different design in order to achieve the required optical characteristics - completely different from CPUs, where, once you have a basic design that works, you can scale that design in various ways, for instance multicore designs usually include the possibility of having a variable number of identical cores. By contrast, lens manufacturers almost never take a 50mm lens design and add a few teleconverter elements to make it, say, a 70mm lens, and you would be able to fully comprehend the many reasons why if you familiarised yourself with this subject. Equally, simple scaling is almost never an option because of the physics involved. Almost every interchangeable lens released (I'd guess about 90%) has a unique optical design - and that's before we get to other features such as focus motors! Samsara 16:25, 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.