Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S III
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 redirect. to Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#Successor, where it is already briefly mentioned. If there is further content worth merging it can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Samsung Galaxy S III[edit]
- Samsung Galaxy S III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this page should be deleted because this page is filled with rumors that have not even been confirmed yet, the first prototype was NOT shown at CES 2012, basically the page is just a bunch of lies. s.o.m.e.g.u.y.4.3.2. 06:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support a partial delete - Although most of the content up there is fill with rumours and speculations, the release of the phone has been confirmed. The iPhone 4S article was created weeks or even months before the phone was released but contrary to this article, it was filled with information relevant to it's pre-release, such as date, place and other information that wasn't speculative. Will help clear up the Galaxy S 3 article and delete the rumours when I can. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as a partial delete. Exercise of the administrator deletion tool — which is what a AFD nomination requests — removes the whole wikitext and the entire editing history from view. Editing the article, with the edit tool that even editors without accounts have, is not deletion. You need to decide whether you want the closing administrator to use xyr deletion tool, because that's the decision to be made, here at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what I mean.. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't, because you haven't said anything meaningful. Exercise the deletion tool or do not exercise the deletion tool: pick one. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean no you don't, I clearly state my intention in the first reply, despite having a somewhat misled initial support sentence. I'm sure you don't judge an entire book by it's first line because that would be extremely foolish, so why do it here? My intentions were to remove content that warranted deletion and I have acted upon these intentions. Instead of taking 'You know what I mean' with the benefit of the doubt, you decided that I was "challenging" you, clearly you weren't exercising good faith there and as result replied with an obnoxious tone. There also really isn't any point clarifying whether I support a deletion or not because consensuses aren't decided on the basis of a majority but on reason. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More waffle without any clue given as to what outcome for the closing administrator is desired. Is it really so hard for you to pick one of the two choices and say which one you've picked? Far from there not being any point to it, that's what this discussion is primarily for. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, about my previous edit, I got a bit carried away, these few weeks haven't been the easiest. I understand you're just trying to do your job but can you lighten up your tone a bit, being antagonised and condescended to while attempting to improve Wikipedia (which is our common goal) is quite frustrating. To clarified my previous 2 replies, I oppose the article deletion. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More waffle without any clue given as to what outcome for the closing administrator is desired. Is it really so hard for you to pick one of the two choices and say which one you've picked? Far from there not being any point to it, that's what this discussion is primarily for. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean no you don't, I clearly state my intention in the first reply, despite having a somewhat misled initial support sentence. I'm sure you don't judge an entire book by it's first line because that would be extremely foolish, so why do it here? My intentions were to remove content that warranted deletion and I have acted upon these intentions. Instead of taking 'You know what I mean' with the benefit of the doubt, you decided that I was "challenging" you, clearly you weren't exercising good faith there and as result replied with an obnoxious tone. There also really isn't any point clarifying whether I support a deletion or not because consensuses aren't decided on the basis of a majority but on reason. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't, because you haven't said anything meaningful. Exercise the deletion tool or do not exercise the deletion tool: pick one. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what I mean.. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as a partial delete. Exercise of the administrator deletion tool — which is what a AFD nomination requests — removes the whole wikitext and the entire editing history from view. Editing the article, with the edit tool that even editors without accounts have, is not deletion. You need to decide whether you want the closing administrator to use xyr deletion tool, because that's the decision to be made, here at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Theres plenty of articles like these. Dozens of Sony and HTC phones that are still to be released, and some, still to be confirmed like the HTC Edge, but the point is that an article needs references and as long as that is followed, and the guidelines for how a Wikipedia article is to be designed, it can stay IMO. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge to Samsung Electronics (or userfy to a major contributor), per WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be recreated in mainspace (via WP:UNDELETE) once there are some reports in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't anything speculative in the article, all rumours about its specification have been deleted and will continue to be deleted as users attempt to add it into the article regardless of whether it is sourced or not. The phone itself has been confirmed by Samsung and was earlier refer to in a twitter post made by Samsung earlier this week. No release date is included in the article as none have been announced by Samsung thus far. The only possibly speculative content is the reference to the iPhone 4S' successor which has not been announced by Apple. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But isn't this patrolling going to be a little disruptive? Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. -- Trevj (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't anything speculative in the article, all rumours about its specification have been deleted and will continue to be deleted as users attempt to add it into the article regardless of whether it is sourced or not. The phone itself has been confirmed by Samsung and was earlier refer to in a twitter post made by Samsung earlier this week. No release date is included in the article as none have been announced by Samsung thus far. The only possibly speculative content is the reference to the iPhone 4S' successor which has not been announced by Apple. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I vote KEEP it as is; time will flesh it out soon enough.
LP-mn (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge — Coverage exists in RSes, but it's entirely speculative at this point. Merge for now and fork back out when non-CRYSTAL coverage exists. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge Products of this sort in the pipeline can be merged into a higher level article pending release, e.g. Samsung Galaxy. Warden (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect - Merge what exactly? The entirety of the article that is verifiable is "a Samsung smartphone expected to be released in 2012". Until we have an actual announcement and some details, any speculation and stuff can go into Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#Successor. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Samsung Galaxy and Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#Successor. Per WP:CRYSTAL, not enough is known to justify a keep currently. "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic" Superm401 - Talk 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Will be re-created when there is verifiable information sometime in the future. -- Alexf(talk) 18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,merge. None of the phone's specifications can be reliably verified at this time. The article will only warrant full coverage when the phone is officially launched by Samsung. Now, however, I propose redirecting this article to the Galaxy S II one or expanding the already existing mention it has (in the S II article) to more accurately reflect the considerable interest the phone has garnered.Thuralt (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2012 (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.