Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony BDP-S1

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

unnotable Blu Ray player models, basically advertisement and reiteration of specs found in instruction manual. There are likely thousands of models of Blu Ray players. Unencyclopedic. Ejfetters (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ejfetters (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTCATALOG; random Blu-Ray players that don't do anything special aren't notable. —Cyber cobra (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep BD-P1200 is the first Blu-ray player that has Reon HQV upconverting chip in it. This is a really high-end chip, earlier used only in DVD players and scalers that cost $3,500 to $5,000. Besides that, the article contains links to player compatibility issues, firmware updates and movie playability. This information is scattered over the Net and otherwise would be hard to obtain in one readable and complete chunk. I am planning updating this page with more information on compatibility and playability. See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=996786 And by the way, there is absolutely no advertising on the page, even if there were, the player is out of production for about a year and a half. -- Mikus (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep OPPO BDP-83, it is the company's first Blu-ray player and the first Blu-ray player ever with DVDO scaler. This is huge. Again, like HQV this technology earlier was seen only in $3,000+ price range. This player is a game changer because of technology used in it and because of known dedication of OPPO for compatibility, firmware updates and customer service. I take it, you don't know about this brand. This is a poor videophile's brand, go read about it. Or just wait while someone fills the article with relevant info and THEN read it instead of simply deleting the entry. Mikus (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "There are likely thousands of models of Blu Ray players." -- You just don't know about this area of technology, why are you keep insisting on deleting these pages? Even now in 2009, there are several dozens of models at best. A year ago there were only 10-20 models. This is a new technology, and pretty much all the early models are notable. Newer models from no-name Chinese manufacturers are not notable. Best-Buy's or Wal-Mart's store brand models are likely not notable, this is a commodity. Mikus (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The movie compatibility and information you are saying about the Samsung player is not notable. There are millions of movies, listing its compatibility with each one is not encyclopeic, not something you would find in an encyclopedia.  This does not conform to WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:... 5. Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions.  and 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. Also, WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:... 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project, Wikibooks.  Furthermore WP:IINFO As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:...  3. Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.  It's all right there, the prices aren't notable, the technology itself may be notable, and therefore should have its own article, not encompasses in articles of products it is being used to, this is not the purpose of those articles, the purpose of those articles would be the players, which aren't notable.  There are more than a dozen Blu-Ray players, there are several low-end generic brands, I was just looking today for a new extra one.  Telling someone to update their firmware for compatiblity is a "how-to" and Wikipedia isn't a How-to (read above policies posted.)  Did all the work, copied and pasted it right there. Ejfetters (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On one last note cuz I figure it will come up, the change in the price of the technology may be significant enough, but that too should be encompassed in an article for the technology, not the players. The players are cheaper because the technology price has changed, otherwise they would not sell a player at a loss of over $1000. Ejfetters (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * is this a notable entry: TI-30? Oh, right, it says right in the first sentence: "a notable scientific calculator." I suppose I will do the same, just slap a "notable" right into the article intro, problem solved. Mikus (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is not a great argument to make. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:08, 20 August 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.