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 delete and redirect to Nikkor. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Nikkor 85mm f/2[edit]

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

I redirected this article to Nikkor based on WP:PRODUCT. However this redirection was reverted. So I'm taking it here to get consensus on what to do. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page because as you can read at the deletion policy: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Well, what about editing the page if you don't like it? (Sandroamt)

More, I know that the page is a product but it is an old product that reached his end of life in stores and I think vintage lenses have some interest and cannot be regarded as "normal product" (Sandroamt)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to justify notability beyond minor product review and auction listings. No indication this lens is significant to the photography field in any way other 85mm lenses. Most of article text is unpacking lens. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about deleting almost all the lenses you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nikon_F-mount_lenses ? --Sandroamt (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect Nothing demonstrates notability for this lens. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my Delete !vote and replaced with Redirect - Nikkor is the obvious target. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of talking to lazy people that instead of improving an article (definitely improvable) prefer to delete it. I lost already too much time and I don't have anymore time to fight for free with destructive people. Feel free to make of it what you want, but I think that you are not doing a good job for the wikipedia community (remember: to destroy you need a simple click, but to build you need more time). --Sandroamt (talk) 15:11, 16 January 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.