Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia C2-06

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia C2-06

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references indicating notability. Wikipedia is not a catalog of every gadget ever offered for sale. Edison (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-notability not established by AfD submitter. --Kvng (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V as unsourced, and WP:N as containing no references to substantial coverages by independent reliable sources. Sandstein 05:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2011 (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.