Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 7160

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 (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 7160[edit]

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. This article has zero references and is only a couple of sentences long. Cell phones enjoy very short lifespans as products, and models like this one are evolutionary steps along a long chain of practically disposable products. References to support an article on this phone are hard to come by; largely, all that's available are reviews and self-published fan sites. Mikeblas (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the first wap/ media phone it deserves an article, needs improvement, but I have added references for what is there for now. Fosnez (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Which one of the first was it? Tenth? Seventh? Second? Like so many of the articles on Wikipedia, your argument seems to be using weasel words. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog. No proof of notability. Edison (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough for mine and thanks to Fosnez for his work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sourcing to show the article could be expanded with more independent sources. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep & improve. I think it's legit. I didn't even know they have a page for my phone, which is much cooler IMO -- even though it's older :) Well, my phone doesn't have WAP, but it has GPS nav. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that Wikipedia is not a Nokia Catalog, but it neither is the Britannica. Hollywood starlets, European regional folk myths, Japanese fetish, tiny universities, Pokemon characters... and a long list of gizmos and computer games are here on the Wikipedia. Never in the history of mankind has such things found there way into an encyclopedia, not matter how much the readers would have loved them. This phone is verifiably cited and is a part and parcel of the Nokia product range. Why would we want to delete it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument . Any article has to satisfy WP:N on its own, and this one does not. Edison (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2007 (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.