Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung SGH-A167

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 delete. ✗plicit 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-A167[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a procedural nomination following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Samsung SGH-A167. The article is about a model of phone. It was created in 2010, and now – eleven years later – its creator and only substantial contributor believes it's not notable and would like it deleted. There were no notability-based objections to this, but nevertheless several editors did not favour WP:G7 deletion. There was one suggestion to merge the article (along with other articles on non-notable Samsung phones) into a list, partly so that {{R from file metadata link}}s (like the one here) could continue working. – Uanfala (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RfD participants: 1234qwer1234qwer4, Thryduulf, Knowledgekid87, EurekaLott, Tavix, Lenticel, Joseph2302. – Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and original author. This is not a notable phone by any metric. There's no news about the phone that I can find. It does not pass WP:GNG. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7, the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith. I also see a misapplication of WP:BLAR to get the rather silly situation that we currently find ourselves in—that an article has been restored, but no one explicitly stated that they thought there should be an article on the topic. WP:BLAR prescribes the course of action when there is disagreement on whether article content should be redirected or not, but in this case the redirector is the same editor as the author so there is no such disagreement. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - As I said before I am fine with deletion per WP:G7. If anyone wants to recreate what little of this article there is then there are always future drafts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, it should be recreated as a {{R from file metadata link}} redirect to an appropriate target (e.g. a list). With non-trivial edits and suggestions to merge, this does not meet the requirements of G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2021 (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.