Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trium

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 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trium

Trium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) –

Non-notable phone, article cites no sources, no assertion of notability. Simply being a product made by Mitsubishi does not grant notability, as notability is not inherited. Kesh (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep There are plenty of available sources, I have just found one with a very quick Google search. I would have thought that the nominator would have had a look themselves, before nominating, but this AFD seems to be driven by making a point after a rather heated discussion at DRV. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• To quote from the source (which I have added to the article) "Since that time, MWC has offered nine different types of cell phones to US customers, most notably its Trium series." Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that source doesn't satisfy WP:V. The article isn't about the Trium, the Trium is only mentioned on that one line you quoted. We need multiple third-party sources that are primarily about the Trium to satisfy. Also, please WP:AGF. This is not a point, I honestly believe this phone does not satisfy our notability requirements. As for "Plenty of available sources," please feel free to add some. A google search turned up several press releases and trivial mentions, but zero articles about the phone itself. -- Kesh (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can't imagine how you could believe that this doesn't meet the notability criteria, but OK. As for verifiability, I believe that the source I provided was fine. I can see nothing to say that the article has to be primarily about subject. Can you please clarify your objection. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Where does it say that the source has to be primarily about the subject? --Explodicle (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kesh, however s/he was possibly thinking of: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'm guessing that Kesh's interpretation of "article topic" is stricter than most. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see anything wrong with a format of: introduction, followed by a section about Trium Mars, then another section about Trium Eclipse, and so on. Addhoc (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I just reviewed WP:N, which states that if a source addresses a subject "directly in detail" it counts, which does not require that the source is primarily about the subject of the article. --Explodicle (talk) 01:41, 12 February 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.