Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celor lens

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. There is consensus that the article should not be deleted outright, but no consensus as to whether the page should be kept or merged. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Celor lens

Celor lens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced since 2006, no sourcing found, dicdef. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep appears to be a notable lens design. Dedicated book chapter [1], few sentences in another book [2], and more [3]. Lack of references is not a reason for deletion. The requirement is verifiability not verification. Rentier (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Rentier: That doesn't fix the article being an obscure dictionary definition that fails to assert notability. My toenails exist and can be verified; does that make them worthy of an article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Unless your toenails have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't be deleted, but merging to Dialyte lens would make sense to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  A merge would be kind of acceptable, though I'm not sure what it would accomplish. The main article might end up with a disproportionate coverage of the Celor design - or not. It's a fairly specialised subject with most sources hidden behind paywalls, so it's hard to tell. Rentier (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per sources found by Rentier. Merge can always be considered after AfD has closed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 05:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per sources dug up by Rentier. In the interest of consensus, a merge or a selective merge is a reasonable course of action, and may better serve our readers on this specialist topic in optical lens design. --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 8 September 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.