674:
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.
493:. 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.
634:
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.
727:. 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.
541:
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.
673:
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
633:
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 The second AFD was posted, then very shortly withdrawn by the nominator, again there was no outcome, no "keep" or "delete".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
458:
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
Knowledge (XXG) a mirror of manufacturer's catalog specs listings is
540:
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
230:
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
434:"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.
569:. 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,
419:
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.
693:- 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. --
612:
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
199:
525:
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.
99:
94:
459:
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.
160:
381:
193:
89:
595:. 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?
232:
511:. Those are the same sources that I was referring to, what makes them notable sources? How is a Crutchfield review a notable source?
17:
567:
63:
48:
Taking into account the discussion below, I do not believe this is a controversial outcome, so I think this debate suitable for
290:
appears to be independent. The others were commercial sites I wouldn't trust from Jim. Delete unless more sources can be found
127:
122:
736:
719:
702:
683:
666:
643:
626:
604:
587:
550:
535:
520:
502:
472:
448:
429:
414:
399:
369:
355:
332:
313:
299:
278:
260:
70:
131:
214:
582:
443:
181:
114:
751:
36:
405:
Sources appear to be just reviews of the product, I'm sure every other Blu-Ray player has countless reviews as well.
240:
653:
Reliable sourcing exists. No problems exist otherwise w/ the article that can't be solved w/ normal editing. Also
614:
360:
What about the sources that I added in the second AFD? It seems like you didn't put much thought into your !vote.
566:. There's bloody loads of reliable sources about this product, it's obviously notable. Just look at Google News:
508:
750:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
478:
175:
574:
435:
236:
715:
490:
340:
No indications that this BD player is notable. All sources in the article are primary sources from Sony.
248:
295:
274:
171:
396:
60:
675:
635:
512:
406:
252:
732:
698:
679:
639:
546:
531:
516:
498:
425:
410:
365:
328:
309:
256:
221:
207:
244:
348:
596:
460:
711:
662:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
482:
468:
291:
270:
118:
49:
600:
388:
53:
187:
728:
694:
622:
542:
527:
494:
421:
361:
324:
305:
343:
658:
148:
464:
110:
78:
618:
461:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
744:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
486:
287:
155:
144:
140:
136:
206:
220:
100:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1 (3rd nomination)
95:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1 (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
754:). No further edits should be made to this page.
382:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
269:-per the sources presented in the second afd.
8:
233:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is Not
376:
380:: This debate has been included in the
87:
617:? I will look at the rules tomorrow.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
657:on nominating this article, please.
323:: Per my sources in the second AFD.
85:
24:
90:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1
710:per abundant sources availalbe.
304:How are they not independent?
71:07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
737:16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
720:17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
703:12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
684:09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
667:05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
644:09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
627:04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
605:04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
588:02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
551:00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
536:13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
521:07:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
503:19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
473:18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
449:02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
430:12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
415:04:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
400:23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
370:18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
356:18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
333:15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
314:19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
300:14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
279:13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
261:07:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
771:
747:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
507:This isn't a vote, see
286:of the sources listed,
84:AfDs for this article:
402:
385:
241:WP:NOTADVERTISING
762:
749:
615:WP:FORUMSHOPPING
585:
581:
577:
446:
442:
438:
394:
386:
353:
351:
346:
225:
224:
210:
158:
152:
134:
68:
58:
44:The result was
34:
770:
769:
765:
764:
763:
761:
760:
759:
758:
752:deletion review
745:
583:
579:
575:
509:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
444:
440:
436:
392:
349:
344:
342:
251:to name a few.
167:
154:
125:
109:
106:
104:
82:
67:
64:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
768:
766:
757:
756:
740:
739:
722:
705:
687:
686:
670:
669:
647:
646:
630:
629:
607:
590:
573:can add them.
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
538:
453:
452:
451:
432:
403:
374:
373:
372:
335:
318:
317:
316:
281:
228:
227:
164:
105:
103:
102:
97:
92:
86:
83:
81:
76:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
767:
755:
753:
748:
742:
741:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:Snowball keep
706:
704:
700:
696:
692:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
672:
671:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
648:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
611:
608:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
589:
586:
578:
572:
568:
565:
562:
561:
552:
548:
544:
539:
537:
533:
529:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
462:
457:
454:
450:
447:
439:
433:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
398:
395:
391:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
354:
352:
347:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:WP:NOTCATALOG
234:
223:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
173:
170:
169:Find sources:
165:
162:
157:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
80:
77:
75:
74:
72:
69:
61:
59:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
746:
743:
724:
712:FeydHuxtable
707:
690:
654:
650:
609:
592:
570:
563:
455:
389:
377:
341:
337:
320:
283:
266:
249:WP:NOTMANUAL
235:, including
229:
217:
211:
203:
196:
190:
184:
178:
168:
73:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
691:Strong keep
292:Ohconfucius
284:Weak delete
271:Umbralcorax
194:free images
111:Sony BDP-S1
79:Sony BDP-S1
56:S Marshall
729:Quantpole
695:ThaddeusB
676:Ejfetters
636:Ejfetters
543:Joe Chill
528:Joe Chill
513:Ejfetters
495:Joe Chill
422:Joe Chill
407:Ejfetters
362:Joe Chill
325:Joe Chill
306:Joe Chill
253:Ejfetters
245:WP:NOTDIR
288:only one
161:View log
659:Protonk
655:cool it
610:Comment
584:Windows
445:Windows
200:WP refs
188:scholar
128:protect
123:history
576:Fences
489:, and
477:Here:
465:Edison
456:Delete
437:Fences
397:(talk)
338:Delete
172:Google
156:delete
132:delete
597:Mikus
580:&
441:&
393:cobra
390:Cyber
350:Spyke
215:JSTOR
176:books
159:) – (
149:views
141:watch
137:links
46:Keep.
16:<
733:talk
725:Keep
716:talk
699:talk
680:talk
663:talk
651:Keep
640:talk
623:talk
619:Ikip
601:talk
593:Keep
564:Keep
547:talk
532:talk
517:talk
499:talk
491:this
487:this
483:this
479:this
469:talk
426:talk
411:talk
378:Note
366:talk
329:talk
321:Keep
310:talk
296:talk
275:talk
267:Keep
257:talk
208:FENS
182:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
66:Cont
571:you
387:--
222:TWL
50:NAC
735:)
718:)
701:)
682:)
665:)
642:)
625:)
603:)
549:)
534:)
519:)
501:)
485:,
481:,
471:)
463:.
428:)
413:)
384:.
368:)
345:TJ
331:)
312:)
298:)
277:)
259:)
247:,
243:,
239:,
202:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
52:.—
731:(
714:(
697:(
678:(
661:(
638:(
621:(
599:(
545:(
530:(
515:(
497:(
467:(
424:(
409:(
364:(
327:(
308:(
294:(
273:(
255:(
226:)
218:·
212:·
204:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
174:(
166:(
163:)
153:(
151:)
113:(
62:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.