User talk:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices)

Created the final draft
Hi.

I created the final draft of the essay. Would you please take a look at it, and provide your suggestions for further improvement? Thanks a lot in advance. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have made minor changes, feel free to rework. I think that the Notability section's quality is very good.  The others could probably still benefit from a little copy-editing.  The lead is large and since the essay is short, after reading the lead and getting to the Notability section an impression of redundancy is possible.  I think that the message of the essay is clear and that it reflects policy, which is the most important.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 15:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Device families

 * Many devices such as laptops are grouped together into more general articles about their notable family. I wonder if the essay also should specify this distinction and suggest that devices which are not particularily notable (not enough material to create a ~5+ paragraphs article) by themselves may best be covered as a small mention in the family's article rather than as a distinct article.  Another interesting aspect that may be good to remind readers about is WP:NOTDIRECTORY...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 14:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point: what will people care about in 20 years when reading about these topics? They likely would expect the coverage of pioneering devices and families that museums would have on display.  There are directory sites where every model can be found, as well as company catalogs, Wikipedia being neither.  Those catalogs may also be collected by museums, although Wikipedia is not for general directories of everything...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 14:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But I dont know how to include this in essay. As usual, you are more than welcome to edit the essay. :)
 * — usernamekiran (talk)  15:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I'm having trouble understanding what this essay is trying to achieve. Since you've nominate a bunch of these for deletion, I assume you want to make the notability criteria more restrictive than WP:GNG. The nutshell says WP:GNG applies. There is discussion of distinaction between online presence and notbility but nothing that tells me anything that I don't already know from my understanding of WP:GNG how to make this distinction. Your last three points at introduce reasons articles that don't meet WP:GNG could be considered notable. I'm not sure this is what you intended.

I'm going to take a guess at what you're trying to accomplish here. Let me know if I'm right. We have an issue with actors wanting to have articles about themselves on Wikipedia. As soon as they've done some work, they get an entry in IMDB and use that to argue they're notable. IMDB is generally a reliable source but since it has a policy of creating a comprehensive directory of anyone who has ever appeared on a screen or behind a camera, it can't be used as evidence of notability. Same goes for these electronics. Appearance in a database is not evidence of notability. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am not sure if I want to make the notability criteria more restrictive than GNG. But I certainly want to avoid wikipedia turning into a shopping brochure for electronics. Regarding the question of three points, it is sort of tricky. If a device meets any of these three requirements, it will automatically pass GNG as well. I mean, if a device has breakthrough sell, it will get coverage in mainstream media for that. Same goes for consumer base. And it can not be proved a device has made an impact on society/culture without coverage in mainstream media. And thanks a lot for pointing it out, I had forgotten to include it in the essay (differentiating between online presence, and notability).
 * I hope I answered your doubts, if not; please feel free to ask more questions. :)
 * — usernamekiran (talk)  20:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If the points all boil down to WP:GNG I'm not sure what the point of this is. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are various essays and guidelines which basically summarize GNG policy, but expand on topic-specifics; those are not to contradict or amend policy, but to help editors understand what it means in a particular context (i.e. with context-specific examples). Thanks for your input, your suggestions are also welcome,  — Paleo  Neonate  - 14:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes but 's stated intent is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a "shopping brochure for electronics" and it doesn't appear that cause is actually being furthered by this essay. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, even though mostly done, the essay is still under progress. We (not just me) can make appropriate changes as per the discussion. :) — usernamekiran (talk)  18:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * hi. Do you think this is necessary? I mean, I think we should avoid making innumerable articles for electronic devices. But this just my opinion, and I would like to hear opinions from other experienced users. Your opinion would be a lot valuable here.


 * I'm trying to understand what you're trying to accomplish before jumping in too deep here. "Shopping brochure for electronics" and "Distinction between online presence and notability" seem to be at the core of your concerns.
 * WP:GNG is arguably going to allow a fairly large "shopping brochure" because modern people are very interested in these devices and so they get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you want to move this, you're going to have to produce a more crisp line than you've drawn with this essay.
 * I have suggested one existing means of distinguishing online presence and notability with my actors example above. Another is in WP:CORPDEPTH which requires non-routine, non-local coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And yes you are right, my top concern is "Distinction between online presence and notability". If it is explained properly, half of "brochure" issue will be covered in it. I am not much good with English idioms (it is like my fourth language), I am not sure what you meant with "crisp" line. But I think you mean a solid (not thin) line, right? — usernamekiran (talk)  19:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to propose clear criteria for distinguishing online presence from coverage in reliable sources. Above, I give examples from other notability policies. ~Kvng (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been inactive for a long while, I think I will start working on it again. Do you have suggestions? — usernamekiran (talk)  23:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * also pinging . — usernamekiran (talk)  00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion`, if a device is simply part of a list, it isn't notable, but if it has independent reviews, I tend to think that it is. What I am not seeing is how our existing WP:GNG fails to give us the answer here. What is so special about electronic devices that they need an additional rule? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the mobiles linked in this article: Xiaomi Redmi. Also defining "reviews" is a little difficult too because of paid reviews. There are websites like gsmarena, and many more who include every mobile on the website, including reviews. So it is highly likely that any mobile released after 2012-13 will have a review on at least three different webistes, and at least 3 more website will publish the specs. So thats 6 sources in total. — usernamekiran (talk)  01:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)