Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson W960


 * 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 - fails to provide any sources to substantiate notability. I suggest editors spend more time on looking for them and less time expressing their own views on the matter. Tyrenius (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sony Ericsson W960

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable phone. This one is unreleased, and has no references to substantiate its feature claims or it's notability -- so it's just crystal balling. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Just a list of features, so it reads like an advert. prod removed without comment by User:68.60.168.2, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 
 * Keep - it is actually released, and needs some cleanup/expansion rather than deletion.  WATP   (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of electronic gadgets, and this article lacks any references other than the manufacturer's sites to show it satisfies the Wikipedia notability requirements per WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per WATP --Frodet (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mikeblas. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a bunch of indescriminate information (on purpose). Pharmboy (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since the phone is plenty notable (how many thousands of people own one?) and yes we are a catalogue of many different things including television shows, record albums and singles, films, and mobile phones too. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ownership does not notability make. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on similar things to what Coccyx Bloccyx said. Wikipedia seems to be a catalog of everything and just about every other phone is listed, what makes this one special? It definitely could use a nice summary and some cleanup to look more like other mobile phone articles. Megaversal (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please read WP:WAX. Plenty of phone articles have been deleted; why are you considering the ones that haven't yet been deleted instead of the ones that already are? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I read WP:WAX and then WP:NOT and I'm trying to find a consensus on why generic reference information (camera lenses, mobile phones, whatever) should or should not be included. If you could provide one, I would appreciate being able to make a more informed vote. As it stands, it seems to me that Wikipedia is appropriate as a reference of basic information like mobile phone specifications. Megaversal (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer'. WP:NOT #2 and #3 are applicable. WP:NOT, too. WP:PRODUCT explains that commercial products should get their own pages if they are notable; WP:N explains that notability is achieved using references to substantial works. wp:Notability, applies, too, and is helpful in understanding why every product that gets a 400-word capsule review on a couple of websites isn't notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phone is notable, and this is not the forum for cleanup.  RFerreira (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Has anyone read wp:Notability? In 20 years will this model of phone be 'notable'?  Notability isn't a temporary thing, or it isn't notable at all.  Pharmboy (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of this phone is not temporary and I do believe that this will serve as a handy reference point in the long term.  (jarbarf) (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the article does not assert notability. The source does not assert notability. Shouting that it does, and, pointing at other stuff that exists (for now), doesen't change that. SQL Query me!  18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, even though this is heading hard for a no consensus. This is not notable.--CastAStone//(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (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.