Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1600

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 1600

These do not appear to be sufficiently notable models of telephones. They appear to be minor incremental improvements over existing and widespread technology. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of phone specifications. —ptk✰fgs 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional article

• Nokia Shorty
• Question Would a merged article of say, all motorola cell phones, all nokia cell phones, etc. be acceptable? While I agree that separate articles are probably a waste of resources, the information probably should be here. If I want to purchase a new phone, it would be nice to be able to just go to wikipedia and look it up. Anyone else in favor of a possible merge? Although, it will probably take a lot of work... will381796 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem at all with an article discussing the histories of major cell phone technologies, with appropriate examples. I just think it's inappropriate to have so many articles on so many individual phones whose uniqueness appears to exist only as a function of the way the electronics industry works. If individual models are notable, that's fine -- see Motorola International 3200. But Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of electronics specifications. Link to phonescoop from the "Cell phone" article and we're all set. —ptk✰fgs 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Nominator has recently nominated another phone article for the same reason, everyone has opposed his nomation so far. [1] As for the WP:NOT he is quoting, it says nothing about phone spefications. Also, this phone series has even more google hits than the other article he nominated. 560,000 Dionyseus 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's let the bandwagon effect play itself out without resigning ourselves to it as a form of procedural guidance. Do you have any idea how many hits there are for mremap() in the Linux kernel? And yet we just have the main articles. —ptk✰fgs 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment'. WP:NOT can't possibly enumerate every subject or article series that doesn't belong. Being interested in cleaning up more than one article is similarly irrelevant. -- Mikeblas 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. This phone isn't in any way revolutionary and therefore isn't notable enough for an article of its own. People interested in Nokia phones can check the Nokia website, their cell provider's website, or any of several cell phone specialty sites and find information that is both more current and more useful. -- Mikeblas 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—As noted in previous discussion. Williamborg (Bill) 05:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per my comment in previous discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 05:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep distinct products of major notable companies are notable in their own right. Internationally released products will hae reviews in trade/consumer magazines for WP:V and WP:RS. Articles needs a "Nokia products" navigation box adding, though. Wikipedia need to conform to paper dictionary limitations on notability LinaMishima 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT as cited in nom. Just because the other AfD was closed early as a WP:SNOW case doesn't mean the keep reasons were well argued or compelling. This is an encyclopedia, not consumer reports. We don't need an article on every product under the sun.--Isotope23 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. --Bigtop 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep it's verifiable. It's going to be important to someone. Put it here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's a coincidence that the example in WP:CORP for products that don't need a bazillion separate articles is:

"For instance, if a company has twenty different models of cell phone, and there is little difference between them, then compiling a single article for all of them would help readers in spotting the differences and similarities."

If this ain't cruft, I don't know what is. —ptk✰fgs 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Reply if you can point out to us which model this phone is a variation upon (and hence not a distinct design with truely unique features), and hence show that this article does fit the above, then do so, and votes will be changed. It is also worth remembering that notability is a guideline (albeit a rather useful one), rather than policy LinaMishima 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. The 1600 is almost exactly the same as the 1110; slightly different keyboard, B&W instead of colour screen. Judging by the specs listed in the articles, The 1600 is also similar to the 6030. Dual-band GSM phones, slightly different firmware features; otherwise the same case size (within a millimeter) and same weight (within a few grams). Very similar to the 6010; again, just a slightly different case and a few firmware features. Otherwise, just another dovebar phone. 3310/3315 are nearly the same, too; a few firmware features and dual-band GSM. The firmware features that are different are enabled or disabled to provide some small differentiation for marketing purposes. They don't really mean naything notable about the phone at all -- no research or revolution; just planned obselescence to milk more money out of consumers and put more phoens into landfills.

Indeed, notability is only a guideline, but it's also up to the article to show notability. These articles don't even try. -- Mikeblas 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no real reason to delete this, the model is plenty notable and if the article is too short it can be temporarily merged into a list of Nokia phone models. RFerreira 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete both per ptk. JChap2007 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Both per WP:NOT, nom, and Isotope23 --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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.