Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1600 (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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1600

Previously nominated twice; no consensus was reached the first time, and after almost two years, the article remains unreferenced and establishes no claim to notability. The second nomination was about 8 months ago; no improvement since then. This is just another cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide and Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, so this material really doesn't belong here. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Strong Delete~~ This seems to illustrate a problem with the Wiki process. People will fight like apes to keep an article but then once the AfD closes they go on their merry way; never trying to make any of the improvements they swore were imminent and were all that was needed to make an article great. This is an encyclopedia not a product guide. L0b0t (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to redirect per Thetrick. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to list of Nokia products as is the case with several other models. Thetrick (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above if thelist already exists otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not because I want this article so bad, but List of Nokia products lists them all with links to the product pages, which would mean that deleting them all results in a list without any context, other than numbers. I agree WP is not a product catalog, but that debate can go a long way, since every last combat tank, airplane, car, gameconsole and apple product (etc etc etc) is featured in its own article. Why shouldn't all (nokia) phones be? Or even all types of Coca Cola, or all types of Ferrari? Agreed, a lot of those phone articles need work, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. If the article was nominated twice and twice kept, that's a strong indication that there's some merit to it being kept. Sometimes you just have to wait for someone to eventually pick of the glove and expand this article. Otherwise we will have to AfD a lot more than just this cellphone. Shoombooly (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:WAX doesn't help much. I nominate articles as fast as I can, and I do wish I could delete all the cataloging articles about unreferenced, non-notable products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I understand where you're coming from, i have the same with non-notable songs and albums that can't easily be gotten rid of. But looking at the previous 2 AfD's for this article, there was a good bunch of people that wanted this kept, why not just accept the results of 2 other tries (in which you were involved) and move on, surely there's plenty of other things that need cleaning up? Apparently the other 2 times it wasn't deleted because people saw merit to this article. As i've learnt here, a badly written article can sometimes stay, indefinitely, as you know Wikipedia has no deadline. This means it has forever to get improved, when its given the chance. Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentSeeing a large number of article of a given sort which deserve deletion, but perhaps don't fit well as a group nomination, could make one feel a bit as Caligula did when he said [1] that he "wished all Rome had one neck." Edison (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I did accept it. I accepted it, then waited several months and noticed no improvement in the article. I did that twice. Note that the first AfD didn't keep the article--it just didn't reach a consensus. The "no deadline" doctrine doesn't apply to articles that don't need to be here because of WP:NOT or WP:OR or WP:N, like this one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to show that it satisfies notability requirements. Simply being a product offered for sale by a large company in no way provides inherent notability. Wikipedia is not a surrogate of the vendor's webpage. If being offered for sale by a large company was sufficient notability to justify an article, then since notability is not temporary, every product ever offered for sale by a large company would be notable. I would not oppose a redirect to a list of Nokia products, although even such a list will sometimes have questionable notability. Imagine a list of every product ever sold by Sears Roebuck in the last 115 years. Edison (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? Wikipedia tries to list every Roman Emperor that ever lived, every invention, every town (2 million or so), every creature...why not every product? I'm sure more people noted the 1600 than one of the hundreds of species of amoebe listed on WP. Also, what about this for example? It's a remote, big deal, yet has a fully fledged article. I'm willing to bet more people had a nokia 1600 than a apple remote. But that's not the point, is it, it went through AfD twice, was kept twice, nothing has changed, so why the need to delete, nothing has changed and there's no deadline? Why the tenacity? Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to Keep, see below Merge and redirect to List of Nokia products.My initial instinct is to support Shoombooly, my WikiProject Orphanage partner-in-crime. However, my friend, I think that your arguments for keeping this article speak more towards the fact that there are a lot of other articles which deserve deletion (see Edison's Caligula quote, above). Doing a cursory Google search for this phone only reveals the specs for this phone, and not any other reason it's notable. ~~The Apple remote is notable, in my opinion, simply because it can be used for so much, and is pretty unique as far as remotes go, in that it is a remote for a PC, which is not a common thing.~~ But cell phones are common as mud these days, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about this phone that is not already covered by the cellular phone article. If you can find something specifically unique about it, then I would switch to keep. Until then, I would merge all the specs into the Nokia product article. Sorry, pardner.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must slap you Aervanath, with this link: PC Remotes. Not that unique, that Apple Remote (better design though). Anyway, i could argue the buttons are different (they are, quite unusable as well), or other things that are slightly different. Point is, i really believe that when people search for gadgets in google, they often end up checking WP. There's no real line when it comes to products. Look for example at BlackBerry#Phones with BlackBerry e-mail client. Are they all notable phones? Yet they all have an article. Randomly deleting the Nokia 1600 after it was already kept twice seems a weird thing to do. Just because it is a simple phone doesn't make it less noteworthy than say, a Nokia 3310. I would agree to delete, if there was a policy to do so. But given the list of nokia models had so many articles for so many models, and given that this article survived AfD twice, it seems against my Vulcan logic to delete it this time round. Shoombooly (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Consider me slapped. :) Alright, so I'm obviously wrong on the "PC remote is unique" argument. However, I think my other arguments are still valid. I think there is other stuff like this, so we should keep this one, too, is not a valid argument, and I would probably vote "merge and redirect" for the Blackberry client phones you linked to, as well. As for "it was already kept twice", see WP:Consensus#Consensus Can Change. Especially since, as Wikipedia matures, and our number of articles grows, arguments for inclusion have been undergoing much more rigorous scrutiny than before. I think the other "redirect" votes above are evidence that, for some of us at least, the previous consensus is no longer valid. Also, I would point out that the result of the first discussion was in fact no consensus, which defaults to keep. I would point you to WP:PRODUCT, as well. As for searching for gadgets on google, google WILL still give the redirect as a search result, and since I am urging that we keep all the Nokia 1600 info in the Nokia products article, it is not as if we are therefore preventing users from finding information about the phone.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Well all that being said, the link to your main point of argument is broken! Of course consensus can change, but still, the consensus does not seem to be outright deletion. Also, i think the steady growth of WP isn't necessarily automatically maturing, since there are many new people who post rubbish articles. Again, why bother with this article at all, it's here, it's been here 2 years, not enough people took offense. Again, what's the point of listing all inhabited places in the world, most never ever noted by any of us, but not to include a phone millions of people know from experience. That does not compute for me. And also, WP:OSE is NOT, I repeat, NOT policy! I could just as well write an essay outlining why OSE is a completely valid argument. OSE is used every day in WP, as an argument to create all sorts of stuff. Most of which never gets deleted. Using WP:OSE is just as invalid in this argument as me claiming OSE is. Shoombooly (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply to reply to reply to comment I have fixed the link above. I should point out that I did not vote for "outright deletion", either. And I agree with you that OSE is not policy. However, I tend to agree with it, especially, as I said before, because I think that the other articles you are citing probably don't deserve to be independent articles, either. Just because something's not policy doesn't mean it's not right.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        RRRRRRReply But with all the crap there is to delete, this one isn't so necessary. And that's basically my point. Shoombooly (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They'rrrrrrrrreeeeee grrrrrrreat! So you're voting "keep" on the basis that we should delete the other stuff before we delete this one? Or am I mis-interpreting you?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Final words on this one I'm voting keep because it is common practice on WP to have articles about consumer goods. Whether it be Big Mac's, Opel Astra, Gameboy Micro, Canon EOS 300, Twinkies, Palm Treo, Sandisk Sansa or whatever else is available. Mind you, I did not even need to check those pages, i just knew they would exist. Are they all revolutionary or notable? No. Perhaps the BigMac, but surely not the Sansa. The thing is, once something is common practice, what's the point of singling out this article and deleting it? Just to make an example? If you allow so many, why bother deleting a few? So yes, my point is that if we refuse to draw a clear line, we should allow the borderline cases as well. Not because the item is so notable, but because deleting a few sets a completely arbitrary precedent. Why delete this one but not that one? There's no strict rule on it. If an item was bought by millions of people, it is at least somehow notable, right? "Nokia 1600" on Google yielded more than 5 million hits (or 1 million depending on the method), surely that's notable? It's all a matter of definition. OSE doesn't help because of SO MUCH OSE. There's no end to what can be deleted under OSE rules, and therefor we should not even start. Other stuff does exist, and because we let it, and have no desire to have it cease existing, this may exist as well. As if the Whopper / Caramac is a notable product...still millions know it, and it gets an article. Same goes for this phone. Millions used it, so it gets an article. 1 million google hits can't be wrong. Just my 2 cents. Shoombooly (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Final refutation One million Google hits prove nothing if none of them give enough information to make an article with more than just bare specs. Also, the problem with allowing borderline cases is the old "slippery slope" argument. If we allow all the "borderline" cases, then that means that effectively they are all inside the border, which means even less notable articles are now borderline, which by your argument should be allowed, and thus it keeps going. At some point we have to start knocking back the borderline cases.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consumer products such as cell phones are like books or movies: they become "notable" when people write about them (for example, reviews). There are published reviews of this cellphone (one is already linked from the article). There are even a couple of articles mentioning this phone on Google scholar; the first one seems very interesting but I can't access it. --Itub (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to Keep I think the review cited is nothing more than an instruction manual, and therefore doesn't hold much weight for me. However, the article from Google scholar that Itub gave above IS more than that, and I have updated the article to reflect that. It now meets basic notability guideines. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with articles about similar phones, like I did with Nokia 6800 series Towel401 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (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.