Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S5

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 keep. Sandstein 20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S5

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

WP:CRYSTAL ViperSnake151 Talk 16:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IS well sources and the phone is confirmed not a group of speculations or Original research.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I almost laughed seeing this was on AfD. I think it is definitely noteworthy enough to keep. Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in this article is speculative and predictive. It is not confirmed unless Samsung announces it; it might not even be called the S5. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Notability, many sources are talking about it, even if it is vapourware it has good sourcing. This interview "...around March and April,...,” Lee (Young Hee) said. “When we release our S5...." establishes the name S5 Martin451 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason why we can't just wait for the product to be formally announced? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phone is just a concept! Even if it isn't fake, it hasn't been released yet. Helixsoft (Talk|Contributions|Templates|Userboxes) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We all know it is coming so eventually the page will have to be re-added. And if there are enough sources. But I am not aware of Wiki policy in this matter.--Inayity (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRODUCT covers this pretty well and advises against creating such stubs. (Search for "Explosive Space Modulator" in there.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An CRYSTAL does say: short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. 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. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article premature as it doesn't really say anything significant... The announcement of a successor's release date without any other details could well fit in the previous gen article. Having said that, I suspect we will have an article on this at some point, so it's not terribly important what happens in the mean time, but I'd !vote for a merge & redirect to a section in Samsung Galaxy (the product line article), until more info emerges about this one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that someone deleted a fair chunk of sourced content from the article during the AfD [1], which is probably bad form. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This page meets notability, however with the product haven't being released yet, this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, with the intro being like some sort of promotional, so possible merge and redirect could be in views. ///EuroCarGT 02:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if no announcement whatsoever has been made, but it clearly has been. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation and rumor do not confer notability. The latest source added cites "an unnamed source" who could very well be the janitor. The article is WP:TOOSOON and violates WP:CRYSTAL by relying on speculation and rumor – which are specifically disallowed, even from reliable sources. Once the official specs are released, then we'll have something to write about. Guesswork is not encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm that far in the minority, then I'll strike my vote and go back to grumbling. It looks like this is heading toward a snow keep, so I won't stand in the way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be speculation saying the unnamed source "could be a janitor"? There is nothing in the source that indicates speculation. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced, plus Samgsung has already released information about the phone. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 09:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samsung Galaxy S series and create a new section. Eye snore (pc) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a second AfD has been opened and closed WP:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S5 (2nd nomination) whilst this one is still open. Martin451 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the phone's existence has been confirmed by a fairly senior Samsung executive. As such, WP:CRYSTAL is not accurate or relevant here, and there is a lot of pre-launch coverage; some is rumour, some is coverage of the announcement. User:NinjaRobotPirate clearly hasn't read the Bloomberg source here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 28 January 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.