Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG VX9400

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 Keep. --VS talk 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LG VX9400

LG VX9400 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable product. Reads as an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This phone has too few substantial third-party sources to support a Wikipedia article; reviews don't convey notability. Mikeblas (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've got this phone, and it really is an outstanding piece of hardware. But that doesn't mean it's notable, and it has too few reliable sources. So, Delete. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog. No proof of notability. Edison (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, enough sourcing to show the article could be expanded with more independent sources. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom or at least redirect to LG Electronics. Wikipedia is not a directory is the link about the policy. The article itself is really lack of verifiable reliable sources to become an independent article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- The article has references and the product itself has some notability in Korea and US. If anyone search it with googling, he/she can hardly say that the product is lack of notability and sources.--Appletrees (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its unique form-factor makes it notable and the sources seem quite adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (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.