Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6080
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 and please add the references found here to the article. Keeper | 76 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cellular phone. Insufficient substantial third-party references exist to support a Wikipedia article that itself is not a review or an advert. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Mikeblas (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per WP:GHITS, having a lot of hits on Google doesn't guarantee "evident notability". If we dig into the hits your search gives, we find that most of them are about promotion. They bulk are either advertisements for buying the phone, advertisements for buying accessories, or press releases announcing the same. Such references are not "independent of the subject" per WP:N. The remainder appear to be trivial reviews, which are not "significant coverage" per WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News is just being used a convenient way of assembling a stack of news coverage. This seems more than adequate to demonstrate that the world has noticed this phone. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that Google News includes press releases and reviews, not only news. Per WP:RS, independent sources are required -- not just re-hashed news items made from press releases. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News is just being used a convenient way of assembling a stack of news coverage. This seems more than adequate to demonstrate that the world has noticed this phone. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per WP:GHITS, having a lot of hits on Google doesn't guarantee "evident notability". If we dig into the hits your search gives, we find that most of them are about promotion. They bulk are either advertisements for buying the phone, advertisements for buying accessories, or press releases announcing the same. Such references are not "independent of the subject" per WP:N. The remainder appear to be trivial reviews, which are not "significant coverage" per WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The world has to do more than merely "notice this phone." Coverage has to satisfy WP:V, and specifically go beyond trivial reviews. I just went over those Google News links myself, and the same language keeps repeating; there's nothing in there that isn't an ad or a press release. RGTraynor 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more material out there. For example, casting my net more widely, I quickly found a review that isn't flattering: Mobile Gazette. But notability isn't about whether a product is good or bad. It is sufficient that it has been noticed. Another word for reviews is notices. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, why is this nomination from the 21st Jan in today's list - it's now the 24th? This is not normal practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage of Nokia mobile phones. --Funper (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The continued crusade against notable mobile phones on Wikipedia continues to perplex me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of everything. I don't really see why it should lose to any commercial cell phone encyclopedias. GreyCat (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete — Not an article, just listing specifications. Uncited too. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:31, 29 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.