Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6233

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 — Caknuck 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 6233

Nokia 6233 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

These products don't meet WP:PRODUCT. The article is a list of specifications which are completely un-cited, and reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure. The article is unlikely to be repaired as substantial references don't exist for such products. Listing after {{prod}} was removed without comment. Mikeblas 15:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a Nokia directory. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sources exist [1] we can have an okay article here. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... we can cover stuff like this. I'm not interested in it, but some people are. Why not provide them neutral, accurate information? Mikeblas and I have had this out before and it's probably an "intelligent people may disagree" situation, can we leave it at that? --W.marsh 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's an analysis of the first ten links at the Google News page you've linked to, w.marsh. Just like the other phone AfD where you posted another link, these seem more like an argument against the article than one for it:
  1. techtree.com, a 1200 word review of the phone. Not substantial coverage.
  2. infosync.com, a 350-word review of the phone written before it was released.
  3. infosync.com again, this time after its release. 390 words, which is just a capsule review that's not a substantial reference.
  4. infosync.com again, a 150-word announcement, not a substantial reference.
  5. strategy.com, this link is 404.
  6. For-sale document from pqarchiver.com of the PR Newswire press release. Not usable as a reference.
  7. Same thing as previous link, at highbeam.com, another PR republisher.
  8. Same thing as previous link at noticias.info, another PR republisher.
  9. lexisnexis.com charges $3 to view the whole press release about stores in India now delivering the phone. Can't use subscription sites as references.
  10. It's the PR Newswire piece again, now at AccessMyLibrary.com.
Again, the point of the AfD is that no substantial and appropriate secondary sources are available. The product receives coverage consisting of millhouse capsule reviews and "repeated" press release announcements. A notable product would have substantial coverage from third parties. -- Mikeblas 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1200 word reviews are a good thing. Try to find that much information in prose on the average town or river we have an article on. The point is that we can provide some decent information here, and this is a topic some people are going to want an encyclopedic article on. No one's going to come here looking for information on this topic and say "Whew, I'm glad they didn't give me an article at all, no one's written a book about this phone!" People want as much information as we can give them... in this case we can give them some neutral, encyclopedic info. Maybe we can't write a FA, but it's still going to be denying decent NPOV information to a lot of people to delete these article. No one comes here to marvel in all the articles we don't have. If we have encyclopedic information on their phone, great. If we have a redlink, we're less useful for a very poor reason. --W.marsh 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, along with any similar ones. Could also be merged into a single article on Nokia cell phone models, but very few cell phone models warrant individual articles. Collectonian 08:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep i've found this page and many other like it useful. wikipedia i thought was meant to be all inclusive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It does indeed meet WP:PRODUCT. The Nokia page is too large to incorporate it within itself and needs seperate pages for its products. It is a notable product. --69.107.99.46 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as failing WP:N. Phones have no free pass from the notability requirement. The fact that it exists and is sold is not enough. There are no secondary sources cited to demonstrate that this phone has anything to mark it out from all other phones. The sources in the Gsearch are advertorial in nature rather than objective, critical reviews. TerriersFan 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Considering W.marsh's I believe that this article can satisfy WP:V. I also believe that with the topic being so broad, the information could not be merged into another article as suggested by WP:PRODUCT. As such, I feel that the article should remain. SorryGuy 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. See nothing notable about this particular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia product directory. --Fang Aili talk 16:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indeed, it would be a bad thing if Wikipedia became a directory of products. This is a very specific Nokia phone model just like dozens of others. This doesn't deserve its own page; there is no indication that it is especially important. Coverage of this topic should be in a general place like List of Nokia products or, perhaps more specifically, Nokia 6000 series. Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 15 November 2007 (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.