Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic DMP-BD30K


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Panasonic DMP-BD30K

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:Notability. There is nothing special about this particular Blu-Ray player KelleyCook (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Presuming notable technology is not taken to include "every single model of standard home equipment manufactured ever", delete can be the only option, on the evidence of the article. Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - When I wrote this article (around a year ago), I thought this player would be notable because it was the first player (that was not a computer drive) to fully implement Blu-ray's final standard profile (Profile 1.1). I am not sure of this, and if it is not sufficient to establish notability, I have no problem if the article is deleted. J.delanoy gabs adds  03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it had said "First HD Blue Ray player" or something, then I would have said "Keep". First "Profile 1.1" doesn't have general meaning. It's technical jargon. I even skipped over "Bonus View" I think when I read first time. Maybe that makes it notable. I don't know. What does Bonus View do? Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: per above. It isn't notable for being the first player to spin its giblets at the appropriate half-turn clockwise. If it was the first Blue-ray player it would be, but minor spec compliance does not confer notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The nomination and comments above indicate a complete lack of understanding of the notability guideline. The guideline is not whether the topic is important or special but whether there are good sources for the topic.  Such sources are abundant for this topic and the article is extensively referenced. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with your characterization both of the article, and of my analysis... I don't think the sources prove notability in this case. I'm analyzing the sources by number in the article below:
 * 1: Trivial mention. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
 * 2: Unable to retrieve.
 * 3: Not independant, Panasonic's website. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
 * 4: Looks like some sort of aggregator of reviews. Unreliable. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
 * 5: Actual review from a source of questionable (bloglike) reliability. Judgment call, and I don't think it is reliable.
 * 6: Actual review from a source of questionable (bloglike) reliability. Judgment call, and I don't think it is reliable.
 * 7: Valid source for proving notability under WP:Notability, although it doesn't provide any indication of why the product is notable, just that it exists.
 * 8: Valid source for proving notability under WP:Notability, although it doesn't provide any indication of why the product is notable, just that it exists.
 * 9: Product link at Amazon. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
 * 10: Amazon sales rank. Does not prove notability under WP:Notability.
 * While #7 & #8 may be used to prove notability, all they do is create a presumption of notability, a presumption which I believe is rebutted by the fact that there is nothing notable about the product that the sources are supporting. (See WP:GNG). The mere fact that the product exists does not merit encyclopedia inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only the points made by Jo7hs2, but also - I don't care what I don't understand. Just because the guidelines are way over my intelligence level and I could never hope to get my little head around them, the fact would remain that I would consider the article too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Even if what I said before the comma were true, it wouldn't necessarily prevent me from understanding what the guidelines are there for (WP:RIGHT_TO_USE_BRAIN_INSTEAD_OF_WPs) - "making Wikipedia a great encyclopedia." imo bloating Wikipedia doesn't help it. Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It still seems that opinions such as yours are based upon the idea that the topic should be important in some way in order to be notable. This is not the case.  WP:N says clearly, "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity...".  And so we have numerous articles on minor topics such as Basidiobolus ranarum - an obscure fungus found in frogshit.  You seem to think that we should be deleting articles such as this in order to reduce the size of Wikipedia.  If so, we should start with the articles which have no sources, not the one we discuss here which has several.  It is the existence of sources which establish this topic's right to be here and this is the essential point of WP:N.  Dislike of DVD players per se is not adequate reason to delete.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, rather than seem, let me clarify what notability means to me. A topic which might impart useful knowledge (as opposed to information) of potential general interest. Potential general interest would be:
 * # well known generally
 * # very important within a specialized scholarly field
 * # well known within a culturally important but not general field (e.g Music: operas we never watch and singers we've never heard of, Art: paintings we've never heard of, Sport: Romanian football captains most of the US and non-sports fans have never heard of, Computer games)


 * "Blue Ray players" is not a culturally important field. "Technology" is, but then common sense says minor specs of Blue Ray Players isn't noteworthy.
 * Quote all the WPs you like. That is not a stupid idea of what should be in an encyclopedia, nor is it ignorant. Whether you agree or not.


 * As a general point, I think it's best to only use guidelines to contend a point as a last resort, or when the person you are replying to is in a distinct minority in the discussion so far. That's not the case here. Guidelines are a reflection of consensus, not a substitute for them. That's not a Wikipedia point, but a general one.
 * As another, which could have avoided this distraction: It's best to try to avoid stating assumptions about how others are reasoning. Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2009 (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.