Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celor lens

Celor lens

(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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]