Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson Z530

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 Keep. Maser (Talk!) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson Z530

Sony Ericsson Z530 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Sony-Ericsson catalog. Too few substantial references exist to support a meaningful Wikipedia article; practically all references are reviews and press-release reports. Listing at AfD after contested {{prod}} with a WP:WAX argument. Mikeblas 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - should we now go and delete all articles on mobile phones? Is this phone less notable than any other Sony Ericsson phone or indeed any other phone? If this article on a modern mobile phone were to be deleted, this could set a precedent. Agree that better referencing should be carried out, however. Would only support deletion if all other 'non-notable' phone articles were deleted. --EJF 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please see WP:WAX to understand why your argument isn't helpful. -- Mikeblas 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The page at the end of the link says: <blockquote>Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)</blockquote> Did you mean to quote this line? But no one quoted the [[WP:WAX]] before you did. This is confusing.-[[User:Kushal_one|'''Kushal''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Kushal_one|<small>t</small>]]</sup> 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: Same reasons as EJF, Lack of citations is a terrible handicap, however. would concede if this article can be merged into another existing article without degrading quality. --Kushalt 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Also check this article. Granted, a camera is not a cell phone, but it is an electronic product. This precedent could potentially wreck havoc to articles like the above linked. --Kushalt 19:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense. The whole point of WP:WAX is that there's no such thing as precedents for AfD. Nothing's going to "wreak havoc" on anything. —Keenan Pepper 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep:Per above. --ZeWrestler Talk 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence that this phone is any more notable than any other - it is mearly similar to its predecessor. An encyclopedia is a summary of human knowledge not a collection of every possible fact - the subject of each article needs to be notable in its own right. So, there is certainly a place for mobile phone and probably places for "first", "most successful" etc. mobile phones in certain categories; but not for every single mobile phone ever made! If there are other non-notable phone articles (as seems likely) they too should be deleted. Gaius Cornelius 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Later comment without change to vote: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services seems perfectly sensible in this regard. A product or service that is not itself notable does not deserve its own article. For those who propose that this and other articles like it be kept, I ask what article on a phone would you be prepared to omit from Wikipedia? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm really interested in what would exactly make a mobile phone notable. (Also: what proportion of Wikipedia articles on mobile phones meet those criteria? And this is not WP:WAX, it's more like reductio ad absurdum - if only 15 articles are left, then there must be something wrong with the criteria.) I see nothing wrong in references being reviews and press releases; on the contrary, I'd be slightly surprised that someone would waste their time reviewing a non-notable product. GregorB 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge these into a broader article; I'm thinking something like Sony Ericsson Z series. —Keenan Pepper 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can we please stop the mindless nomination of random cell phone articles? This is not helpful in building the encyclopedia. We have a general policy issue that we should discuss at a policy level. Taking potshots at articles one at a time is simply disruptive. Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Totally agree. A centralized discussion would be helpful, random AfDs -- hardly. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Some damage has already been done: e.g. Sony Ericsson T100 has been deleted recently as a non-notable mobile phone, which is funny, since "sony ericsson t100" review yields more than 90 thousand Google hits. How could one object to a deletion nomination when it is unclear how to prove "notability" in the first place? (See my comment above.) And that's why my vote is... GregorB (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment'. Google hits don't confer notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Of course not; my point was there are plenty of reviews around, and they do confer notability when they come from "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". GregorB (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep. We can't decide whether the phone is notable without establishing prior criteria - and these should be discussed at a higher level, which would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications in this particular case. GregorB (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. That higher level is already done; please see WP:CORP and WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Point taken, I'm changing my vote. GregorB (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:N ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") GregorB (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Surely it is WP:PRODUCT that needs to be discussed. I cannot see why it would be desirable for cell-phones to be treated as a special case. It seems to me quite clear that unless WP:PRODUCT changes, non-notable cell-phone articles should be deleted; but by all means, let the issue be discussed. Incidentally, I guess you did not mean quite what you wrote: articles should be about things notable in their own right, not about things that appear in notable sources? Those are two very different things. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (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.