Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones (3rd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination is the continuation of the discussion held here: User_talk:Dsimic#Re:_List_of_M.2_SSDs_as_a_section_in_the_M.2_article with User:Dsimic and User:Jeh. This articles is part of the series of articles that I and other participants of the said discussion feel should be deleted because:

Article violates WP:SPAM policy as it is biased toward certain manufacturers, because it does not contain all the smartphones that exist. Listing some manufacturers and products, but not others is not neutral, and lists like this can never be neutral, so it should be deleted.
It is almost impossible to make it up-to date, which makes it per se incorrect. Article that is per se incorrect should be deleted.
Article violates WP:IINFO as it contains "excessive listings of statistics" but it does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".

Two similar articles are now already deleted after those discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of stackable switches and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of displays by pixel density. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this information is applicable to the manufacture's website, but to have it in this fashion? It doesn't seem to meet wikipedia standards. Jab843 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this comparison requires clean up per WP:WTAF, but not deletion. Per WP:LSC it should not even attempt to encompass all smartphones that ever existed, but rather only compare notable models. Given this severe scope limitation, it is very easy to keep this comparison up to date. I am unsure about WP:IINFO claim, as the article contains absolutely no statistical data. Furthermore, nom's concerns are applicable to the whole genre of product comparisons; as such, these concerns should be expressed (and addressed if consensus is gathered) at WT:SAL, not in individual AfD for one of such comparisons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you mean "the article contains absolutely no statistical data"? It contain only the statistical data. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Czarkoff. The criteria being used in this and similar AfDs are absurdly wide - not only do they seem to apply to any articles whatever on product comparisons, but the first two would also seem to apply equally to any lists, or for that matter to any articles or mentions, of products or manufacturers, however well-sourced, anywhere in Wikipedia. Such lists certainly need to be restricted to products notable enough, if not for a standalone article, at least a substantial sourced mention in (and redirect to) another Wikipedia article, the class of products concerned needs to be one compared in reliable sources, and the features compared not only need to be verifiable for the listed products but also ones which reliable sources regularly discuss when describing or comparing the products. But this article (I think unlike the ones in the previous AfDs mentioned) comes close enough that, even once the non-notable products are trimmed from the comparison, the article will still be of sufficient length to stay as SPLIT from its parent article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Czarkoff and User:PWilkinson , it's a useful list, WP:IINFO doesn't apply, nor does WP:SPAM. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is possibly useful, but we have WP:USEFUL for that. Comparing devices like this, selecting which models to feature and which features to include, is an inherently WP:POV activity. Lets leave this sort of thing to tech sites and blogs, where it belongs. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Selection criterion is WP:N in this list. What point of view does it represent, exactly? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - More than a half of the entries are totally unreferenced. Those that are referenced, cite either official web sites of the manufacturer or some sites dedicated purely to technical characteristics of phones (like this). There is not a single independent source with significant coverage. I don't understand what type of WP:N is you talking about? By the way, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable (WP:NOTESAL), so your argument is irrelevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:CSC. This list may live if it complies with first set of criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:39, 13 August 2014 (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.