Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6810

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 delete; the keep votes are largely subjective. east.718 at 04:15, 11/15/2007

[edit] Nokia 6810

Nokia 6810 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable product; just another cell phone which was replaced by a different and better model a few months later. The article doesn't establish notability, and has no references. I don't expect that substantial references are widely available -- just self-published reviews and user blogs. Listing after {{prod}} removed with weak assertions of notability on the talk page. Mikeblas 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, too many articles about phones. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Although the phone wasn't out for too long and wasn't a big model, I think it is still a notable product. BeanoJosh 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete phone with no claim of notabilty This is a Secret account 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The list of Nokia phones is nearly complete so it would be a shame to start deleting them now. Though moving all the 68** phones to one article would be better Towel401 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my arguments in the below Nokia thread and [1]. Sufficient sources seem to exist. --W.marsh 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm looking at your news.google link, W.Marsh, and I can't see why it is a reason to vote "keep". In fact, it demonostrates what I point out in my nomination -- that there aren't substantial references for this product, and therefore it fails notability. None of the 10 links on the first page your search produces are substantial or usable, in fact. There's simple PR regurgitation, mostly. Per Search Engine Optimization, many of the hits don't even go to content relvant to this phone. Here's a summary of the top ten links:
  1. InfoSyncWorld: 350-word capsule review. This is not "substantial" per WP:V.
  2. ImageGallery link that goes to the same above capsule review.
  3. "Nokia Extends..." goes to TOC content that is not 6810-specific.
  4. "Nokia pushes design" goes to a page that lists a for-purchase Gartner Group report. Dunno what it says about this phone, but it can't be used as a reference because Wikipedia wants accessible references
  5. "Partners with i.game": A $5 report. It's from PR Newswire, so it's just a press release; it's only 1445 words long.
  6. Think equity: Another pay article; $88 for a 12 page piece which is about RIM, and probably only mentions this phone in passing.
  7. Not English-language link
  8. Not English-language link (Spanish? Portuguese?)
  9. Not English-language link
  10. Not English-language link (Japanese)
Am I not seeing the same material you linked to? Or am I misunderstanding your point? -- Mikeblas 17:50, 14 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. TerriersFan 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete iphone: yes, non-notable random phone: no Mbisanz 02:34, 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.