Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson C903


 * 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   merge to List of Sony Ericsson models. I think the issue of notability won out in this discussion. Nonetheless, whilst individual articles are clearly deemed inappropriate here, a merge to a list seems to be the balance of the debate. I never know how to enforce these, but I'm going to say that I'd like to see a merge and a related article like List of Sony Ericsson models created with individual articles redirecting there within the next 8 days. I encourage participants in this debate to assist in this task Fritzpoll (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sony Ericsson C903 and related misc. non notable articles

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

Does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a collection of every make, model, design of every phone and this is basically a copy of what one can find elsewhere. Would belong on a main article which would list all models. (please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, article x may or may not be in this AfD due to time constrains on nominating it). Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a online sales site. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, I have gone through and looked at all of these articles before nomination, nothing beyond specs/devl history with no/minimal asserted notability (mostly none, some even on future products) that one can find on any sales site. I'm nominating for deletion of individual articles and creation/retention of a "list of Sony Ericsson products" page. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless taken to a policy level and applied evenly to competition. Right now it's another round of Sony-bashing that erodes credibility of the site. Same thing already happened with Sony cameras: all info was deleted while the competition remains safely hosted at wikipedia. Why, may I wonder? If No Sony Hosted Until They Pay is an official policy, it should be public. Also, please explain why you picked the models in question but omitted Sony Ericsson K810i, Sony Ericsson K800i, Sony Ericsson K850i ? NVO (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant by WP:OTHERSTUFF, otherstuff exists and is not a excuse for the keeping of material. I didn't add it because I didn't have time to (do you know how long it takes to go through this many articles?), and this is not biased bashing. WP:NOTE specifically says that a article must be notable, wikipedia is not a Depository, or a collection of indiscriminate material (specifically number 4 on WP:NOTCATALOG). Quote policy: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." and "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)" &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Haven't looked at all of them, but at least the C903 and C905  are notable products with plenty of reliable sources available. I assume the rest are as well. JulesH (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...a bunch of statistics about what the phone is like is just a notable as every little thing in a online sales catalogue (sp?). Please demonstrate notability, not verifiability. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is demonstrated by independent sources having written about the subject. I have listed, for two of these phones, independent reviews of them, thus satisfying the notability criteria. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But these sources aren't any better than any review by a sales pitch, they only talk about what the phone is, and what is expected, specifications, nothing notable is asserted. Just because a product exists, doesn't mean we should include it. One can find a review on almost any product online (ex. amazon), but that doesn't mean each and every make, model, etc. of the sony ericsson line deserves it's own article (undue weight) solely because "reviews exist", by that standard, we'd might as well just create an article on every product in every flyer/review with a description. In the end, these sources just prove the item exists, and that its specifications are true, they don't demonstrate anything objectively notable (yes, there is promotional blog-style rant in some of them) for the warrant of these to have their own articles. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge by group. It should be the default way to handle them, except for the very most important--usually the first of a type. DGG (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I specifically omitted the nomination of C902, the others have no assertion of notability. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to a group-article or list. BTW, these accusations of biased nomination (an anti-Sony conspiracy??), I wish contributors here would start assuming a bit more good faith. I don't see the point of an individual article on every piece of Sony equipment ever made, and I'm a Sony buyer going back to the TA-AX3 amplifier I bought in the 1980s. I'm very pleased with my current Sony Ericsson W580, but for the life of me, I don't see why these things need articles in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge by group. Tons of little tiny stub articles...with no assertion of notability in the articles themselves...and the only sources being specifications on the company's website--which are not adequate.  Cazort (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Feel free to add any other related stubs w/ no assertion of notability to the list. I don't have the time to go through the entire template of Sony Ericsson phone models checking each one to make sure there is no assertion of notability. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete C903, C502, G705, J210, K200, K300, K310, K510, K530, K810i under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as they're just product specs insofar as they are verifiable. No opinion on C905, G700, G900. WillOakland (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete They are verifiable indeed, but they aren't notable as individual models. Wikipedia isn't a sales catalogue. Themfromspace (talk) 04:11, 28 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.