Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Chocolate (VX8600)


 * 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. JERRY talk contribs 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LG Chocolate (VX8600)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable commercial product. Reads like an advertisement. Completely unreferenced, full of original research and how-to. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Too few references are available that are not reviews and adverts; as such, a Wikipedia article that itself isn't an advert or review can't be sustained. Mikeblas (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Who the heck created this article? Delete per notability requirements, the fact that it reads like something off a Best Buy catalog, and...did I just repeat everything Mikeblas just said?  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: If we delete this, and we most likely will, we're going to have to rework the LG phones infobox as well.  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Weak keep I hate to say it, but I think this could be re-worked into a viable article. The phone is pretty widely used here in the Southeast USA and was heavily promoted, so it could be a notable item. Slavlin (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Why do you believe that wide-spread use establishes notability? I can find no mention of this criteria at WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer I did say weak keep and that it could be notable. I don't see that WP:N is a hard definition of notability. I have seen many articles kept that I don't think are notable per the guidelines myself. Convincing others is the tough part. Slavlin (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete. There could be a viable article on this product, but it would be easier to create by starting over. This article is basically spam. Argyriou (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obviously more work to delete and recreate the article. It is trivial to blank the existing article and rewrite it - no admin action is required for this.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks refs, reads like an ad, fails notability requirement. Cell phones are not automatically notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia article just because a company offers them for sale, even if they get pro forma reviews in online sites which seem to exist mainly to review every cell phone released. There are probably such reviews of this phone online somewhere. I am all for articles about groundbreaking phones which recieve widespread notice, such as the Iphone. Other developments in cellphone technology and notable manufacturers/sellers can be mentioned in the Mobile phone or History of mobile phones articles. Edison (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - best described as spam advertising. But remember notability is not a policy. EJF (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment notability is a guideline and it is quite appropriate to cite it in AFD debates. Articles for deletion says "Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria." I was at a FedEx store today and saw a bin for recycling cell phones. It was about half full (a pessimist would say half empty) of cell phones. That makes me reflect on whether each model of cell phone now or ever sold is really inherently notable as some feel. Notability is permanent, so it would extend to every model ever sold. Why not then every model of Hoover vacuum cleaner, or every model of refrigerator sold by every vendor? They would be equally verifiable, they were also heavily used and heavily promoted, and they generally cost more and lasted longer. Edison (talk) 22:50, 23 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.