Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1 (3rd 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.  Taking into account the discussion below, I do not believe this is a controversial outcome, so I think this debate suitable for NAC.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)'''

Sony BDP-S1
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was listed before and reached no consensus, relisting. Article is written like an instruction manual. Being Sony's first player doesn't seem to be notable in itself, and would better be included in an article for the technology itself. Fails numerous criteria in What Wikipedia is Not, including WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMANUAL to name a few. Ejfetters (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -per the sources presented in the second afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete of the sources listed, only one appears to be independent. The others were commercial sites I wouldn't trust from Jim. Delete unless more sources can be found Ohconfucius (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How are they not independent? Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per my sources in the second AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications that this BD player is notable. All sources in the article are primary sources from Sony.  TJ   Spyke   18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the sources that I added in the second AFD? It seems like you didn't put much thought into your !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources appear to be just reviews of the product, I'm sure every other Blu-Ray player has countless reviews as well. Ejfetters (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's surprising that ultra deletionists are saying that reviews don't show notability. If everyone had the same view as you, hundreds or thousands of articles would be deleted even though they have been considered notable for years. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm sure every other Blu-Ray player has countless reviews as well." Then every other Blu-Ray player is notable. That's how we judge notability, i.e. whether something has received significant coverage multiple independent secondary reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If there are independent and reliable sources with significant coverage to support notability, then add them to the article or list them here. Please do not just refer to comments in a prior AFD. I do not in general see that making Wikipedia a mirror of manufacturer's catalog specs listings is encyclopedic. I do not create listings for every model of every gadget put on the market by companies 100 years ago, and they would have as many sources as these articles about the latest gadgets. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: this, this, this, and this. That is 6 reliable sources with significant coverage (the last one is a list of 3). I really don't understand why you're bringing up indiscriminate collection of information when this doesn't meet it in any way. For some reason, you think that this does but television schedules don't. I also don't see why someone would be so lazy not to be able to click on the previous discussion and !vote without looking at those sources or trying to search for any others. Joe Chill (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Those are the same sources that I was referring to, what makes them notable sources?  How is a Crutchfield review a notable source? Ejfetters (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What guideline supports your opinion that reviews don't show notability? I know that AFD isn't a vote (My keep wasn't a vote which should be obvious). So far, no one has been able to reply to my questions. Joe Chill (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, !vote (notice how it's spelled differently?) is always used to refer to keeps, deletes, merges, redirects, and userfies in AFD. I think that users treat AFD as a vote when they can't say why sources aren't independent, how this is an indiscriminate collection of information, why they won't look at the sources (there is never a good reason for that), and what guideline says that reviews don't show notability (By the way, there isn't a guideline that says that reviews don't show notability). The only way that this article would be deleted is if the closing admin went by a head count. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's bloody loads of reliable sources about this product, it's obviously notable. Just look at Google News:. It took me all of a minute to click on some of those links and see that they're in depth and reliable. The delete voters don't seem at all motivated to even look for sources; don't tell me to add the sources, Ejfetters, Edison, TJ Spyke, you can add them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Geez. The first camcorder is notable, the first TV is notable, the first um... airplane is notable. Why the first Blu-ray player is not? Mikus (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AFD1: 12 August 2009; AFD2: 20 August 2009. I know that there were few people that participated in these afds, but  the short period between all three (less than a month) really gives me pause. Does this qualify as WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I will look at the rules tomorrow.  Ikip (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressing this, the first AFD had no outcome, there was no consensus, so there was never a "keep" or "delete". The second AFD was posted, then very shortly withdrawn by the nominator, again there was no outcome, no "keep" or "delete".  That is why I posted the third AFD to broaden the input and get a true outcome.  It is not forum shopping, I am just looking for an outcome.  Forum shopping says that you would keep posting until you got the result you liked, when in fact both of these had no result.  The previous AFD's were mentioned as well, and are listed so users can go back and view them as well. Ejfetters (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sourcing exists. No problems exist otherwise w/ the article that can't be solved w/ normal editing.  Also cool it on nominating this article, please. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reliable sources are reviews. Point I'm trying to make, there doesn't seem to be any other reliable source, i.e. reception, impact on market, history behind the player (how it came to be), news about the player, etc.  A review may be notable, but if there is only the review then how can the article stand on its own.  How is the player notable in other aspects.  The article is simply an instruction manual reiterated, the sources being provided aren't even discussed in the article so they don't add to why the technical specs and instruction manual style article should remain.  If the subject is notable, please provide other notable information on it, other than reviews.  A review on its own cannot justify the article, 100 reviews even, other aspects of the article need to be added, not just a review. Ejfetters (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Reliable source reviews are the best way to establish notability for a product and this one has plenty of RS reviews. Any problems with the articles tone can & should be solved via normal editing, not deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per abundant sources availalbe. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Loadsa sources as would be expected for a major new product release from Sony. Reviews are more than adequate to meet the GNG. We don't have a "list of things an article needs to have reliable sources for" before it can be made, even if it would be really good to have sources on reception, impact etc. Quantpole (talk) 16:37, 9 September 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.