Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Loxia Distagon T* 2.8/21mm

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 13:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss Loxia Distagon T* 2.8/21mm[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) 13:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the article is a stub with only one reference, there are other potential independent references such as https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rolling-review-zeiss-loxia-distagon-2-821mm-t/ and https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Loxia-2.8-21-review-Compact-yet-outstanding-optical-performance that can prove notability. WP:GNG is achieved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 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. 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 as well as sites which may or may not qualify as "reliable sources" since any person can create such a review site. In particular, dpreview is owned by Amazon and lets readers purchase the lens at Amazon with a mere click. Therefore I discount the sites in general as being "independent and reliable coverage." Edison (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:TOOSOON, borderline WP:ADVERT. 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 - 15:28, 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 13:11, 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) 19:43, 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) 23:19, 11 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.