Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson K610

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, consensus is that it is notable enough and sources have been added where it was requested. Davewild (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson K610

Sony Ericsson K610 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone directory, nor is it a Sony Ericsson catalog. Too few substantial references exist to make a sustainable article about this phone. Mikeblas (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, pending the addition of a source for the criticism section. Such criticism implies notability, assuming it can be sourced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of all presently-manufactured celphones. Lacks refs which are independent and reliable, so fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - if "Wikipedia is not a catalog of [...] cellphones", why do we have over 300 individual ones listed? I checked a dozen or so and most of them appear no more or less worthy of having their own page then this one. Delete them all, or none of them. Or come up with objective guidelines on which to keep and which to kill. --Arcanios (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Other stuff exists" is about the weakest argument for keeping a poor article. Instead, it is a reason to delete this one and then the others like it as soon as possible. Edison (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep... if they can get some sources for it, especially the "Criticism" question (should be replaced by a "Reviews" section.Osli73 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Question. Who is "they"? How much longer should we wait for "they" to get substantial, verifiable sources for it? We've already waited about 22 months. I think that's long enough, so let's clean it out. -- `Mikeblas (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The criticism section is now referenced. Spacepotato (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Criticism is now Reviews. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 17 December 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.