Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prepaid mobile phone brands


 * 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. Tpiwowar is reminded that a user may only !vote once in an AFD. Courcelles 09:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

List of prepaid mobile phone brands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. WP is. not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Article offers no value ChrisUK (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why are you !voting to delete an article you created? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it was created to declutter  another article.  No need to keep it now as it offers no standalone value.ChrisUK (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep.The original reason for breaking this content out of the Prepaid_mobile_phone article was a reasonable way to keep that article looking tidy. Examining the history of this article shows that it was regularly updated. Nobody would bother to update a page that had no value. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SS "Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Tpiwowar (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Tpiwowar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog or directory. 74.198.9.234 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOT is a very long article and you offer no details to relate your comment to anything in particular. I assume you mean to refer to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However this article does not meet any of the listed criteria for deletion at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but I'm restoring and relisting it per a request on my talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an important navigation page that bridges to many other related WP pages. Deletion would dead end a key part of the Prepaid_mobile_phone article that links to this article. (This article was once a part of that article.) Without this list readers would no longer be able navigate to the companies the page is about. Nomination for deletion fails to recognize that people navigate WP in different ways. I personally use such bridge pages frequently to navigate to other WP articles. WP is more than just a bunch of isolated articles, it is also a web of information. Deletion of articles like this one cuts the web. Consistently applying the argument presented to justify this deletion would remove a significant portion of WP and cripple its navigability. Tpiwowar (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. there would be literally 1000s of brands that would meet this mark worldwide. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This comment turns WP:NOTDIR on its head. WP:NOTDIR states “Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details.” All this article does is list major brands, thus providing very useful links to other Wikipedia articles about those brands. That is all it needs to do. If there are other brands that are not listed it has no bearing of the utility of this article. If you think some other brands should be included, you should add them. To argue that incompleteness is a reason for deleting an article sets a standard that would delete most of Wikipedia. Tpiwowar (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:PRESERVE Can be summarized in a few words to say: fix it, don’t delete it. Tpiwowar (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds like a reasonable topic for a list, but it is completely unsourced (WP:V) and undated, and as such worse than useless in a very fast-changing market. Can be rewritten from scratch with sources and dates if somebody really wants to.  Sandstein   09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simply examining the list demonstrates the spuriousness of the claim that the list "is completely unsourced." The list's primary assertion is that the listed items exist. Most of the items in the list are linked to WP articles about the listed items. WP:V reasonably states that “Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself.” Is not a direct link to a WP article the best way to demonstrate that a WP article exists? How else would one demonstrate that a WP article exists? What additional evidence do you require? TPiwowar 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The assertion that a topic should be excluded from WP because it is "fast-changing" is novel. Do we really want to go there? Editors were working on keeping this article up to date. Before this article was suspended it was being updated at the rate of 1 or 2 edits per month. Do you have a source for your claim that this topic is so "fast-changing" that we dare not attempt to write it down? TPiwowar 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpiwowar (talk • contribs)
 * 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.