Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola A830


 * 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 Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Motorola A830

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was PROD-tagged, however I am listing at AfD to gain consensus. I have no real position on whether this article should be kept, but as the first 3G cellphone by Motorola it may be notable. This Google News archive search has 182 results. EJF (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are way too many models of mobile phones to have a page for each individual model. I could see an exception being made for very notable models, but this isn't it. - Chardish (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Practically all of the items in the linked search are either articles derived from company press releases, or commercial announcements regarding the sale of the phone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The weasel words practically all make your comment worthless as only two sources are required to establish notability. If we look at just one of the hits I provided, we see that this phone won a award for being exceptionally ugly and was reported as such by the BBC no less.  This is good evidence of notability and is also not promotional.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per notable ugliness (which I've added to the article). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, run-of-the mill product. Too few substantial secondary sources to craft an article that's not itself a review or an advert. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: the "ugliness reference" not withstanding, everything else prior to that seems to violate WP:OR. At BEST, it should be merged into something else.--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 05:50, 26 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.