Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SH906i

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Really no clear consensus here. There are Google sources to establish notability, but links in the article are listed as external links and not references, further not in English (which is preferred on the English Wikipedia). I suggest editors of the article get this inline with policy. Overall notability can be established and the article needs work, but no clear consensus to delete. Nja247 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SH906i

[edit]
SH906i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Product placement. Also fails notability as this phone is no more notable than any other phone. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is not uncommon for mobiles to have their own articles and a Google search shows significant coverage by secondary sources. Aditya α ß
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Aditya α ß 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about every phone is covered by secondary sources. I don't think that itself is enough to assert notability in this case. Benlisquare, how about being a little less aggressive? I'm not going over OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again, but the notability of the subject should be clearly given in the article and not given through offhand comments in AFD discussions. If it is so popular as you say, this data would naturally be available. Include these sources and information. All that is available now is just a description of the phone. Chamal talk 02:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of this phone is not clearly explained. However, so is the W580i, or W910i, or the numerous Nokia phones that have seen the light of the day. In fact, if only the clearly important articles are kept, then Wikipedia might as well be taken offline, because there would only be so many articles with significant importance. I do not think covering each model of different Logitech mice clearly important, nor do I think that having different pages for different types of tea clearly important. However, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform users, regardless of the number of users, about a topic if they do seek information for that particular topic. -Edwin- (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is again another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Also, Wikipedia:Notability is moot according to what you say. Look, the author and other people knowledgeable about the subject may know why it's notable, but how the heck is the reader supposed to know if it's not given in the article? I'm not asking you people to lose a leg, I'm just asking you to provide details in the article as to why it's notable. I don't have a problem changing my !vote if this can be done. Chamal talk 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify; it has been mentioned here several times that the phone has a large number of users and is popular. This would be enough IMO, and should be added to the article with a ref. The external links given in the article (which also seem to have been used as references) include Sharp's page on the phone and a softpedia article. If the links given here are RS, please add them also to the article as references. A simple description of the phone is all that is available now, and I don't see why you can't add all the information you mentioned here in the AFD discussion to the article as well.Chamal talk 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some info (turns out there was something important about the phone and it is covered in english sites too) and the edits today have improved the article somewhat. I'm changing to Neutral. Just wish we had used the time we spent here bickering to find these intstead. Chamal talk 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider expansion over deletion. You can help to contribute on Wikipedia by improving. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it non-notable. Consider consumers located on the other side of the world. SHARP/docomo makes some of the most high-end phones in Japan, and the SH906i is one of them; so to preserve this article, there is a number of things which need to be done. Firstly, moving to Sharp SH906i would be logical. Second, to add inline citations (right now, it provides a few external links). Then, a quick cleanup may help as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete cause  李博杰  says keep. (yes I know. no need to tell me.). Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. And call me an ethnocentrist all you want, I don't see the notability. Nor do I see adding more articles over non-notable stuff or explanding articles about non-notable stuff as improving WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I remind those who need reminding that badgering people to change their 'vote' will achieve nothing (WP:VOTE). Another issue is that of sources asserting notability. It's clear external links have been provided (note, they are in the section 'external links', not 'references'), but, in all frankness, I can't read them. I can't, therefore, judge them to be either reliable or asserting the notability of the cell phone in question. For all I know, they're talking about the notability of fried plantains. And this is english Wikipedia. I would expect most sources to be in english. --Slartibartfast1992 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V specifically contradicts you about sources needing to be in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Don't know how I missed it, totally my bad. However, it does say that English sources are preferable. I naturally prefer what's preferable. Certainly a couple of English sources would do no harm.
        I guess it's not so much what the sources are saying, though, but rather what the pages look like. I don't mean to sound overly concerned with the aesthetic, but these pages just don't look reliable. I took the liberty of plugging a random one of these pages into Babelfish translator, and the translation confirmed my ongoing suspicion that it was indeed a catalog. Catalogs for a product hardly seem like a reliable, third party source asserting the notability of the product in question. No notability asserted generally means that the article cannot be kept. --Slartibartfast1992 07:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I included those links were because they were the ones present in the Japanese Wikipedia. I can definitely find some sources from DoCoMo themselves if you would like. -Edwin- (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the original writer of this article, I have several reasons to keep this article.
First, this phone has a large custom-user base outside of Japan. I personally also own this phone, and I was blessed that I can read Japanese, so I was able to look up the specs from the Japanese wiki. However, for those who cannot read Japanese, it is important to have a place to go where it is possible to read such info.
Secondly, it is not uncommon for phones to have their own article. For example, the Sony Ericsson W580i is not special at all in any shape or form, but its article is longer and more detailed than this. I do not see people screaming to delete that particular article, either. Or for anther example, the LG KE970 Shine, which I also own. That has no special notability for LG or the world either. No firsts, not innovations, just a shiny screen, but it has its own article in good standing. Hence, there is absolutely no reason to not have this article, or to delete this article.
Thirdly, Wikipedia is supposed to be a aggregate of all knowledge of humankind. While that's overstating this article's importance, I still think it's important to consider all contributions no matter how small.
Furthermore, for those who stated that the sources are all in a foreign language, that's the truth for these things that were not meant for foreign use. Many other articles have exclusively foreign sources but those are not considered for deletion. I feel like I am being discriminated for writing something that does not see massive mainstream appeal.-Edwin- (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Can a Japanese speaker confirm whether or not the above posted links confer notability, as in do they provide "significant coverage" for the phone? One of those links looks like a blog, so I think that's out. If they do indeed provide significant coverage, then it should be kept, just as we'd keep the Motorola RAZR. I personally dont think a company such as sharp would engage in product placement on WP Corpx (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speak Japanese, and I took a look at the sources. Of course, I put them in there, so it does have relevance. One of the sources is from DoCoMo, the carrier of the phone themselves. The other is from a site similar to the English GSMArena.com which independently covers mobile handsets. The GSMArena-like site, Keitai-watch, is a reputable mobile handset reviewer in Japan. -Edwin- (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Could someone please explain to me how there are 158 handset articles in Category:Nokia mobile phones? There is no way that all of them can be considered notable; Nokia may well be the leading manufacturer, but they are not that innovative. Sharp are currently a relatively small player in the world mobile market, but they have been a top supplier in Japan for many years. And don't forget that they supply LCDs to numerous other manufacturers, including Nokia! Sharp handsets are under-represented in Wikipedia compared to other companies (as shown above) and many of the handsets that would be considered notable (eg GX10 -- first camera phone into many markets) are absent. I realise that this is not making the notability of this particular handset more obvious, but it is certainly not product placement (I would have hoped Sharp could have provided a more detailed spec, for example!) What I'm asking for is a level playing field. I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sufficient argument to keep it, but if this article is deleted I would hope that the notability of ALL the other mobile phone handset articles would be considered too. [Note that I have marked this as 'comment' rather than 'keep', as I must declare a COI here.] -- EdJogg (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm not worried about the other phones, it's that I happened to stumble on this page because it showed up on WikiProject Physics' recently created articles list. If there are 44 LG phones, 89 Samsung, etc..., they too should be considered for deletion IMO. However it would probably be more reasonable to merge these articles into lists by manufacturers (or by series if they get really long) than to blanket delete them. Very few phones should have their standalone article, much like very few mp3 players have them. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't create articles based on statistics. But I agree with you that some (maybe most) of these articles do not qualify WP:N. Some brands (eg: Nokia) are popular in the western world, from where most Wikipedia editors are from. That is obviously why there are articles on these and not on products intended for the Asian market. Asia and Africa are under-representated in all areas and not only this. But that does not mean we should fill the place with articles that are not conforming with Wikipedia guidelines. Chamal talk 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case which you are arguing that the Western bias is justified, I will vehemently argue against that. Just because Wikipedia is western based does not allow the English one to become a biased collection of articles against the Eastern nations. -Edwin- (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct argument, Edwin, is that how are all 158 Nokia phones notable? How are they different, significant towards society, using new technologies? I'd doubt that all 158 fall into such a category. Then, why is it that notability is one of the arguments against the SH906i, where there are clearly a whole range of articles which are non-notable. Do Two wrongs make a right? And you are lynching Negroes? I believe all this talk on "this Japanese phone" being non-notable simply because a western "audience" has never heard of it is rather foolish. Why are we even onto this? This argument should have never even arose in the first place. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have participated in numerous AFDs for mobile phones - there was an editor who kept nominating them. For the most part, those articles were kept because such topics are notable by virtue of the coverage in third party sources - reviews and the like. Phones are not required to demonstrate any particular importance because importance is not at all the idea of notability - the point is to identify topics which others have written about. This phone seems quite similar to those other cases and, as we have adequate sources, should be kept too. At the very least, the content would be merged with a higher level article upon the range of phones or the manufacturer. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SH906i&oldid=1136108468"