Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia N70

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. Per discussion. (non-admin closure) justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N70

We're not a mobile phone catalog. Non-notable product with no assertion of notability and no sources indicating it either. Delete Exxolon (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are some lengthy reviews cited as references. I discount any made by anonymous bloggers as not reliable sources, but that leaves a few signed reviews at web sites. Do all the web sites count as reliable sources, with sound editorial control of what appears, so that we can be sure they are not just fansites or spamsites with corporate promtinal reviews? Wikipedia is certainly not a mirror of manufacturer's catalogs, but neither are electronic devices "inherently nonnotable." I would like to see articles from the mainstream press, not just websites which provide lengthy reviews of practically every new technogadget provided by volunteers as opposed to paid writers. Did this gadget have any lasting effects on society since its introduction 3 or so years ago? Edison (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please search for the sources you wish to see before urging that an article be deleted. Here is an article in a major newspaper which took but a moment to find. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement to try to source the article before nominating it - that responsibility lies on the original creator and/or subsequent editors. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE which explains how you should try ordinary editing methods before bringing an article here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article contains numerous sources and so the nomination has a false premise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are only the manufacturer and various reviews. There are no reliable third party sources indicating notability so my nomination does not have a "false premise". If you parse my sentence the phrases are "no assertion of notability" and "no sources indicating it" - it doesn't and there aren't. Exxolon (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Cannot see the point in AFD-ing a single model out of hundreds of models that have their articles. The model sells, the reviews are abundant, so the sources argument is null. Deleting all the texts about individual models is a policy issue that must be taken elsewhere. But don't repeat the digicam folly, when all the Sony models were deleted and all Nikons left to stay (yep, quite fishy). NVO (talk)
- The fact that articles exist on other models is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The fact that the model has sales and has been reviewed doesn't help the lack of WP:RS. This AFD is about this phone - I'm not trying to set a policy so I don't understand why you're going there. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would like to understand why you picked one model of one brand. Specifically, why do you think Nokia N70 must go and Motorola SLVR L6 stay. NVO (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please quit with the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments already!. I picked it at random, not because as you're implying I'm on some kind of anti-Nokia rampage. Why don't you nominate the other article for deletion instead of using it's existence as a spurious argument for keeping this one? Exxolon (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews are the exact sort of sources best suited to show notability for products . Non notable products do not get reviewed. DGG (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to some reviews of Batchelors Bigga Marrowfat Peas [1] - off you go and write an article. Exxolon (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little bit of digging and found this

http://business.maktoob.com/NewsDetails-20070423108854-RCS_Announces_2007_January_June_Trading_Data_for_the_Global_Cellular_Phone_Open_Market_.htm

I would say that to be the second highest selling phone of a major organisation 18 months after release is significant. Whether it's significant enough is another matter altogether. Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists indicates that we shouldn't simply say, for instance "other articles existing doesn't make this notable". The nominator should indicate what makes any mobile worthy of an article, and why this article fails to meet that level of notability. If that discussion takes place I'd be prepared to reconsider my position. WP:OTHER is for when a good case has been made on this article, and similar articles simply haven't been looked at yet. BeL1EveR (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nokia_6500_slide. I think the closing admins comments are good food for thought here. There are phones out there that don't need their own articles. This, however, is a relatively well sourced article with independant reviews, notable for being the first in the N series and being one of the market leader's best selling phones. I consider this to be a blanket nomination by suggesting that a "relatively notable" phone doesn't meet wikipedia notability. BeL1EveR (talk) 17:56, 15 September 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.