Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson S500


 * 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 concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 05:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sony Ericsson S500

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is no a cell phone directory. Insufficient substantial references exist to sustain a Wikipedia article.

prod was removed with a lecture about using prod, but with no substantive improvement to the article. I use prod because I think that there's no controversy here and the article should be deleted because the subject mechanically doesn't meet the notability requirements, and hits several issues with WP:NOT. These products aren't notable--they're just another in a line of evolving technologies. Many have sold, but popularity doesn't convey notability. There are references to find, but very few or none of them are substantial. It's easy to find capsule or comparative reviews which are 1500 words or less; those don't substantiate an article on the phone. The phones are churning for both planned obsolesence and chasing the rapid evolution of standards.

Compare what's been written about the design and evolution of the Corvette or the Apple Macintosh, for example -- truly notable products because of their innovative design, influence in the market, and longevity. Mikeblas (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete, no notability is asserted for the product, and Wikipedia is not a mobile phone directory, but these sorts of things tend to be controversial, so it's a good idea not to prod them. Lankiveil (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep This phone is being released as a special fashion model.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. The article makes no mention of "special fashion model", and neither do the WP:CORP or the WP:N criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's the question? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is: how does this phone meet the notability requirements? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The many glowing reviews which highlight its innovative fashion features. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of other untouched mobile phone articles on Wikipedia and with some improvement, this one could be useful too. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There also of plenty of other mobile phone articles which have been deleted. Did you meant to !vote "delete"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Other stuff exists. Whether there are other articles on cell phones or not should have nothing to do with the argument regarding this article's suitability. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - until something happens to lend notability to this phone. Simply being a phone released by a notable company doesn't mean anything particularly notable, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a bunch of indiscriminate information. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Very few phones are special enough to have their own article, and the amount of AfDs that come about imo is slightly ridiculous--is this REALLY that big an issue?Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;sufficient references exist to support a brief article; see, for example, reviews at CNet and CNet Asia .  I don't agree with the nominator's contention that reviews are unacceptable sources.  I believe his other remarks arise from a confusion between notability and importance.  The Corvette is more important than the Sony Ericsson S500, but both are notable. Spacepotato (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ordinary product reviews in CNET do not qualify for notability. Quick Google check shows no notable sources. Not notable unless something happens to make it so. — Becksguy (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - probably better to have articles for the series of phones, instead of individual models. Addhoc (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree completely, a series of phones is more reasonable, although some exceptions (i.e., iPhone)) will exist, and (haven't searched yet but I'm going to) there's more likely to be information regarding a series of phones more so than one specific phone from said series. But that's wholly a different discussion, I think.  Aeternitas827 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, this article does formally meet the notability criteria - sourced to significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Among the 450,000 odd google hits are several others.  Start with some news stories, here.  Some seem to be blogs, reviews, and PR reprints, but not all.  Second, can we please cut it out already with the hit-and-miss nominations of cell phone articles?  Instead of considering these on a case by case nomination for deletion, where we get inconsistent results that chip away at the encyclopedic coverage of the subject until it's a mess, we should decide this all at the policy level.Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
 * Comment. It's an article on a cellphone. How thorough a discussion does it need? -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The discussion above was as much as most AFDs get and the result was clearly no consensus.  Relisting seems pointless. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - if you look closely at the references, they appear to be rewrites of a press release from May 8 2007. The other citations are a promotional magazine giveaway, and the manufacturer's website. Addhoc (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a cellphone. It glows, prettily or pointlessly. (The glowing seems to serve no purpose other than sales appeal.) The "glowing reviews" mentioned above appear to be mere mentions, amused or admiring, of the fact that it glows. In my own part of the world, phones that glow in pretty colors are commonplace (my wife's got one; it was the cheapest phone available at the time that did other stuff she needed it to do, and she never bothered to look in the instructions for how to stop it from glowing and thereby presumably increase battery life); it's hard to believe that this is unusual in your part of the world. (And removing this article wouldn't "chip away at the encyclopedic coverage of this project"; it might chip away at the fan-obsessive nature of this project.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable product. So it can change colors in response to the season, time of day, etc. Big whoop. It reads like an advertisement with sources.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, with references. I disagree that it reads like an advertisement. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: You say it's notable; how is it notable? -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The references. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Six are provided. For one, there's no URL. Another is from SE itself. That leaves me with four that sound as if they could be worth looking at. This one is unavailable right now (probably just a temporary server glitch). The mobilementalism one is a gushy review. (Well, the site does warn you on that page: MobileMentalism offers you mobile phone news, reviews, articles and rumours from around the world. Read on, feel the pulse of the mobile phone world, and drool over the shiny gadgets!) And the review tells us: But it's not the features that set the S500 apart - it's its looks and its ability to change according to the seasons or the day of the week, or even the day. (As for the looks, they seem unremarkable.) The reghardware.co.uk piece, by "The Hardware Widow", is tellingly titled "Sony Ericsson waxes lyrical over 'nature-inspired' handset": it's a bemused commentary on what's said by "purple prose merchant and occasional phone supplier Sony Ericsson". The infosyncworld.com piece is an uninteresting summary of the same PR release. I'm underwhelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is what I point out in the nomination. The available references are either not substantial, or not reliable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand why they aren't substantial. We could rename the references section to "Notes." I think we can also trust them for the few facts that have citations. We already have a printed source. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every product released by a notable company requires an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a cell phone catalog or directory. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing suggests this set is something revolutionary making it notable per-se. Glowing feature is common (and annoying). The initial marketing campaign in blogs and reviews is nothing unusual and does not make a product notable. Wait a year, perhaps the phone will became best-seller and thus notable. Wikipedia should not serve as catalog of everything. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Spacepotato and Wikidemo, the phone is sufficiently notable. Do we need a guideline for mobiles now?  RFerreira (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (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.