User talk:Noian/Mar2009
| This is in Wikipedia user space.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noian/Mar2009. |
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archives (by month) @ User talk:Noian/Archives |
WikiProject Software Updating[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Now you are free?. -- 81.98.195.53 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC), the unregistered ip address of User:Tyw7 11:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you discount catching up to school work, yes. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Would you like to be a WikiProject Software coordinator??--Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why me? I haven't been online that often editing software related articles. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- You seem the most active in answering the message. Who do you suggest? I am not that active. --Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why me? I haven't been online that often editing software related articles. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Would you like to be a WikiProject Software coordinator??--Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you discount catching up to school work, yes. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Arguments?[edit]
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson C903 you said that the article is "basically a copy of what one can find elsewhere". I thought that Wikipedia is - almost by its definition - a copy of what one cand find elsewhere.
You said that every make and model does not "deserve" its own article. But having an article on a subject is not an award, hence there is no need to "deserve" it.
You're confusing user-contributed Amazon reviews (which do not meet WP:RS anyway) and sales catalogs (ditto) with independent professional reviews: it is true that "almost any product" is reviewed on Amazon, but it is definitely not true that every product gets multiple published professional reviews.
You said that the article did not establish notability. But you did not specify why exactly it does not meet WP:GNG, why "substantial coverage in reliable sources" does not count here as objective evidence supporting a claim of notability (contrary to what WP:NOBJ explicitly says), and what would be necessary for a mobile phone or a similar device to actually meet it.
I don't mind a merge, or even a delete, but I wish that better argumentation was used here. GregorB (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Everything has already been answered on the afd, Verifiability does not equal notability. (You established verifiability, not notability.) WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT (specifically WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTCATALOG. I know the difference, I omitted nominating one of the articles solely because it asserted notability (was in a james bond movie) but none of the others asserted notability at all. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
yeah. that's what I meant. thx ;) mabdul 0=* 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)