Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret cell phone

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 no consensus. Pretty good debate between Hellno2 and Niteshift36. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret cell phone

Doesn't meet the notability guideline. MobileSnail 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT; this is not really encyclopedic as a phenomenon. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: WP:NOT is a page with lots of guidelines. Which one on that page are you speaking of? Hellno2 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. Bordering on WP:NEOif anyone else actually uses it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is about a real concept, but probably falls short of being able to have a standalone article. There are probably at least several possible articles this could be merged to, perhaps something pertaining to adultery. Hellno2 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually found quite a lot of sources describing a variety of reasons why people may want to keep the presence of a cell phone a secret from others, and just the mere fact that cell phone technology has enabled communication to be kept secret. Reasons are not limited to adultery as the article originally described, but also include domestic violence, secret government and military operations, and use by prisoners, among others. An article describing the concept would be perfectly fine. Searching the term "secret cell phone" does not alone reveal all the sources; other variations must be searched. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms guidelines, a new name may be a good idea (something to be discussed separately). Also note that article has been improved and references that were not present have been added since proposal was initiated and the above two deletes were written. Hellno2 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- But is using the phrase "secret cell phone" really evidence of a notable concept? Isn't it really a self-defining phrase like "concealed weapon"? Just giving people a couple of ideas about why someone might want a "secret cell phone" isn't really that notable. This sounds more like an entry for a sidebar story in Cosmo about "10 ways to know your guy is cheating" than an encyclopedia entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is why I recommended renaming to a more notable title. Hellno2 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what I trying to get across is that a new title won't make the topic more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. A new title won't make the topic more notable. But it will help in conforming with the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms. As for this article, notability has already been established with the sources provided. Source #1 especially discusses exactly the topic the creator originally described, which is about cell phones being kept secretly without the knowledge of a spouse. The other sources less so, but still, they describe reasons why one may want a cell phone to be secret. And whether this article is kept or deleted is based strictly on those guidelines listed under WP:DEL#REASON. This now does not meet any of those criteria. Hellno2 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article actually has a whiff of WP:SYNTH to me as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a real topic that has been written about in published sources. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (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.