Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 7610
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 No consensus to delete/Keep--JForget 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cellular phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Too few substantial and reliable references exist to support a Wikipedia article that itself is not an advert or a review. Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although I agree with the nom somewhat, we've treated every other phone model as though it is deserving of its own entry. I don't see why this would be deleted while all of the others would remain. -- Kevin (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, many other phones have been deleted and not all the others remain. This is one of the reasons why your WP:WAX argument is fundamentally flawed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources - we got 'em: Google News. Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a cell phone catalog. The argument by Kevin that all other cell phone articles have been kept is just plain wrong, since several have been deleted. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Colonel, please identify which of the Google News items are your proposal as substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. This seems to be the best approach for proponents of the article to demonstrate its notability, and many of the news items seem to be reprints of the manufacturer's press release introducing its release, or websites of unknown reliability. Just throwing out a Google search is less convincing. Please specify the ones you feel best prove notability. Then it would be great if you would add them to the article as inline cites. Then I would consider changing my "vote." Edison (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 1730 hits in that list and they are all from Google News which indicates a good level of notability. I skimmed it to determine that there was some substantial coverage - reviews and the like. Fixing up the article is not my job nor is there any time pressure to do so because we have no deadline. In such circumstances, where the content is harmless and uncontroversial, the article can be left with appropriate tags indefinitely. AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a stick to try and force editors to do your bidding. Per good folk wisdom, if you want a job doing properly, you have to do it yourself. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the sources appear to be of low quality. At least indicate, here, links to several you like: reliable sources with substantial coverage (not regurgitation of a press release, not a blog where anonymous users talk about the phones). That is not too much to ask. A number like 1730 Google News hits, by itself, does not prove notability. Edison (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's start at the beginning with the first hit Colonel Warden (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This link leads to a preview of an unreleased product. This compromises the review: maybe the reviewer didn't have a final version of the product, or the firmware, or software, or both. Maybe some accessories weren't available, or not. Maybe the vendor didn't even let them play with it in any real way (or not). This review blurts out a bunch of specs, as if it's quoting from a press release, and is only 346 words long. It offers no insight into why the product is any better than any cell phone; in other words, it completely underscores why cellular phones aren't notable. The reviewer even says that it's "Yet another Series 60 phone".
- If we rely on such references to build articles, we'll end up with nothing more than reviews and press releases right here in the encyclopedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:N guideline is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AFAIC, this first hit meets most of this criterion. We just need a second such source as confirmation and we're done. I've looked ahead and find there to be several more. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we determine that "Infosynchworld" is a reliable and independent source? It has an Alexa rating below 21,000, and appears to have blurbs on lots of cell phones. Is it recognized as an authoritative source? Just that plus "a second such source" might not be sufficient. Has it been written up with substantial coverage in the print media? Edison (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what they say about themselves. Seems ok to me. Some way down that long list of other news sources is The Guardian - a print newspaper. This was so notorious for its misprints that it is lampooned as the Grauniad. There are no guarantees from any sources but perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Infosynch says "In addition to the latest tech news, we also keep an exhaustive database that includes just about every cell phone on the market." Is this reference part of that "exhaustive database?" If so then it does not show that this model is more notable than the least notable one on the market: they would both be covered. Edison (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what they say about themselves. Seems ok to me. Some way down that long list of other news sources is The Guardian - a print newspaper. This was so notorious for its misprints that it is lampooned as the Grauniad. There are no guarantees from any sources but perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we determine that "Infosynchworld" is a reliable and independent source? It has an Alexa rating below 21,000, and appears to have blurbs on lots of cell phones. Is it recognized as an authoritative source? Just that plus "a second such source" might not be sufficient. Has it been written up with substantial coverage in the print media? Edison (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:N guideline is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AFAIC, this first hit meets most of this criterion. We just need a second such source as confirmation and we're done. I've looked ahead and find there to be several more. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - completely non-notable mobile phone. If any of your sources do indicate notability over and above the average run-of-the-mill product, please add them as at the moment this article is also completely lacking in Reliable Sources. - fchd (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily verifiable and clearly notable as a major phone from a major manufacturer. Plenty of reliable sources available for plenty of encyclopedic information. I found this after 30 seconds effort [1] Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: notable mobile phone. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 18 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.