Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6170
- 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable cellular phone. This article has been tagged for references for more than six months, but hasn't yet been improved. Too few substantial and reliable references exist to establish notability for this phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Nominator is obviously making no effort to find better sources himself. I make just a single search and turn up hundreds of candidates. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --Kannie | talk 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep almost any Nokia phone is going to be notable, and Wikipedia has no deadline. — brighterorange (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A product from a major manufacturer is notable, and there are references. I should have deleted the tag long ago! But there would be better ones around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, there are references, but 1 is from Nokia's website, the other two are reviews from sites that are dedicated to this and do the exact same to EVERY cellphone within their scope--borderline, at best, but that appears to be where the guidelines themselves seem to be a little bit iffy on if that's passable.
- Merge or Delete I saw all of the Nokia phone pages up for deletion, and I figure that none of them deserve their own article due to notability issues. But, if these items must absolutely be on Wikipedia, then put them all on one page, or on the Nokia page itself. If no notability is still established, then delete this one and all the rest of them. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from WP:CORP:
"Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style.
If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services."
Now, for the first bolded part, I can see not breaking this out--Nokia's article is likely too big for this. The second, the entire paragraph, demonstrates that notability MUST be established by the subject in order to have it's own article (debatable that this has been done with current refs, and I can't find any others), if not, what is there should be moved to a broader article, the example given was all products/services, but with something like this, families of phones would likely be sufficient.
I'm not going to provide a distinct Keep/Delete opinion, as it really is not clear in my opinion whether notability has been established, and the open discussion in the Village Pump is covering that matter; however, I will put what I would reference out there in hope that it can help with a decision here. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 08:32, 14 January 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.