Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6086
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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nokia 6086
Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make an article that is itself not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There are a TON of articles for other Nokia models. And LG and Motorola too. I have no opinion, except that the AfD may be extended to similar articles of equal detail. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Many other AFDs have been filed for many other makes and models. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just got through saying that I don't really care which way the AfD goes, so don't go quoting guidelines to me (btw, from the article you cited: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised...."), but I'm glad you're following my advice to be consistent. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Many other AFDs have been filed for many other makes and models. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sadly I have to agree with the above poster. Wikipedia carries articles — a few even rated GA — on other models of other electronic companies. Computers, namely. Google brings up over 740,000 hits for this term. If anything, it just needs to be expanded and cleaned up. 75.5.4.245 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, that was me. Somehow it logged me out. ― LADY GALAXY 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Galaxy (talk • contribs)
[7], [8], and [9] could be used in the article, which I think are substantial sources. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I think these capsule reviews aren't significant coverage, per the spirit of WP:N. That's the problem; writing an encyclopedia article of any value using reviews that are all less than 400 words in length (a few of the links you've provided aren't even three sentences long!) isn't useful. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep-- Sources are enough for me, at least. And the arguments saying "Wiki is not a cell phone catalogue" is like saying "Wiki is not an atlas" regarding the article Hawaiian Islands. SeanMD80talk | contribs 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability is not a policy. Also read WP:EANP and WP:BASH. EJF (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, keep, keep. As with all phone articles. They are well known products and wikipedia has set a precedant for having articles about them.--Him and a dog 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete — Article is a few lines and pretty much only listing specifications. We don't need articles like these on Wikipedia. If the phone is notable enough it would have a lot more content. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:33, 29 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.
