Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson W760
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JERRY talk contribs 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sony Ericsson W760
Newly announced phone with no established notability. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikpiedia is not a cell phone guide. Too few substantial third-party references are available to create an article that itself not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While Mikeblas is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide, I would argue that keeping users informed about new consumer technology is a reasonable application of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the article is not biased, and is a simple presentation of facts. If someone would care to substantiate what a "reliable third-party source" is, I will find and post some.TMSTKSBK (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm starting to come around to Mikeblas's point of view, but I would like to request that this be frozen until the discussion concerning cellphone notability at the Village Pump is resolved. TMSTKSBK (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Googling (searching using the Google search engine) for "W760 review" or "W760" brings up significant numbers of results for this phone. Some sites include MobileBurn, Engadget Mobile, Cellphonedigest, Gizmodo, Mobile-Review, Esato, CNet, and PhoneArena. CNet, Engadget, Esato and MobileBurn are all pretty well-known consumer electronics websites. Would you consider any of these to be adequate as a 3rd-party source? If not, what would you like for me to provide? TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:N for information on "substantial", and WP:V and WP:RS for information on "reliable". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I read those. Now please tell me your thoughts on the matter and let's discuss. TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you tell us anything notable about it? It seems to be a phone with things that all phones usually have. Does it have anything new or different about it? Is it the first phone to have something interesting? Or is it known for being the least innovative phone of 2008? Seriously though, I'm sure there's got to be something going for it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I read those. Now please tell me your thoughts on the matter and let's discuss. TMSTKSBK (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:N for information on "substantial", and WP:V and WP:RS for information on "reliable". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable: Google News Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N. The refs are: 2 copies of the manufacturer's press release, and proforma reviews from two websites which routinely provide such reviews of every new cell phone model. Thus the reviews merely substantiate that it IS a new cell phone (verifiability) but do not show it is more notable that the other 7 gazillion cell phone models which they provide such reviews of. Edison (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete nn phone, agree with Edison, the sources show it doesn't meet WP:N Secret account 02:27, 25 January 2008 (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.
