- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable device among thousands of other devices. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue, or shopping brochure. Kindly see WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Comment: A counter argument has been made at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see no counter-argument to waiting for consensus. Samsara 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This high-performance lens by a major player in digital photography is (and will be even more in the future) covered in various magazines, and is notable beyond any doubt. WP:MILL and WP:ENN don't even remotely apply to this 1800 USD lens, and stating that it would be "a non-notable device among thousands of other devices" clearly shows that the nominator grossly lacks knowledge in physics and technical photography and didn't even do his homework before nominating this. I'm deeply worried about careless mass-nominations such as this one - they unnecessarily bind energy and time and drive away contributing editors.
- For decades it was thought to be impossible to design a 12-24mm zoom full-frame lens for a (D)SLR, even more so one with fixed aperture. A few designs have been shown in the more recent past, but it is only the advent of mirrorless full-frame cameras with ultra-short flange focal distances just a couple of years ago now making it possible to introduce novel lens designs such as this one.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Matthiaspaul: Ironically, it is your definition of notability that is flawed. —usernamekiran
(talk)
01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please demonstrate how. Samsara 11:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Matthiaspaul: Ironically, it is your definition of notability that is flawed. —usernamekiran
(talk)
01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep reviews in two reliable sources cited, therefore meets WP:GNG. @ Usernamekiran: I would suggest you hold off on further AfD nominations until you have made progress on your proposed reworking of notability criteria for these topics. Continuing these nominations is not going to help further your cause. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable device among thousands of other devices. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue, or shopping brochure. Kindly see WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Comment: A counter argument has been made at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see no counter-argument to waiting for consensus. Samsara 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This high-performance lens by a major player in digital photography is (and will be even more in the future) covered in various magazines, and is notable beyond any doubt. WP:MILL and WP:ENN don't even remotely apply to this 1800 USD lens, and stating that it would be "a non-notable device among thousands of other devices" clearly shows that the nominator grossly lacks knowledge in physics and technical photography and didn't even do his homework before nominating this. I'm deeply worried about careless mass-nominations such as this one - they unnecessarily bind energy and time and drive away contributing editors.
- For decades it was thought to be impossible to design a 12-24mm zoom full-frame lens for a (D)SLR, even more so one with fixed aperture. A few designs have been shown in the more recent past, but it is only the advent of mirrorless full-frame cameras with ultra-short flange focal distances just a couple of years ago now making it possible to introduce novel lens designs such as this one.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Matthiaspaul: Ironically, it is your definition of notability that is flawed. —usernamekiran
(talk)
01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please demonstrate how. Samsara 11:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Matthiaspaul: Ironically, it is your definition of notability that is flawed. —usernamekiran
(talk)
01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep reviews in two reliable sources cited, therefore meets WP:GNG. @ Usernamekiran: I would suggest you hold off on further AfD nominations until you have made progress on your proposed reworking of notability criteria for these topics. Continuing these nominations is not going to help further your cause. ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.