Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones (4th nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of smartphones
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inclusion criteria is arbitrary and undocumented due to the increasing number of smartphone models produced yearly, "Article is an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness", Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports ViperSnake151   Talk  18:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep. Oy, a klug. 4th nomination? Yes, I see the last one was "no consensus" after much discussion (the first two were kept), but it was also quite recent and the discussion was strongly leaning toward keep, and there's nothing essentially different about this nomination nor any reason to think it would go differently. I vote that this AfD be closed immediately per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, to avoid wasting everyone's time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference this time, given that the narrower Comparison of Android devices recently got deleted. Additionally, that's not how WP:SNOW works (it basically has to have so many valid keep votes that there's not a snowball's chance in hell a Delete result would ensue). ViperSnake151   Talk  22:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that's generally how SNOW works. But surely there has to be a way to avoid rehashing the same discussion from two months ago, and two years ago, and four years ago, which you now say has to be argued again on the basis of something else being deleted (WP:OTHERSTUFF). I don't want to do that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - as much as I don't like these product comparisons of specific models that would be just at home on bestbuy.com or some other commercial site, this one does, to me, tilt keep. The problems here seem like they could be solved by more clearly articulating inclusion criteria that ensure it remains reasonably encyclopedic (for example, every model has to have its own page, without linking to an article on a phone series or a manufacturer article, and all data on it has to be sourced in the list)...but that could be done on the article talk page. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is just a wall of tables, statistics and numbers... I'm incredibly interested in the topic, but I found myself glancing at a few boxes and then leaving the page (albeit catching myself when I saw the deletion notice). It serves no real purpose, provides no meaningful information, and is incredibly outdated and incomplete. Nobody in their right mind wants to compare xyzSmartPhone to 200 other phones on a whole bunch of arbitrary statistics, and if they want to compare xyzSmartPhone to zyxOtherSmartPhone, they can do so using the existing articles for those devices. It's November 2014 and there's a single entry for this year, while even a quick glance shows that the others are incomplete. Audigex (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when is incompleteness or poor layout a reason to delete an article? Nothing in this comment addresses actual policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS:SAL states that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections.", and that "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." ViperSnake151   Talk  03:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonably general, and it is split into sections, by year. As for the other concerns, they might be reasons for improving the content, but how on Earth are they reasons for deleting the whole list? Are you saying that this topic inherently cannot satisfy WP:V, NOR, or NPOV? Actually, although not every single claim is referenced, I don't even see major concerns of this type in the current version. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The article is incomplete and the layout could be improved. Despite this, I can see how the article might be useful to someone who is looking for specific features such as 2 GB RAM or a 13 MP camera. The article certainly needs to be updated. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:37, 7 November 2014 (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.