Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola C139


 * 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, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this telephone per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Motorola C139

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Wikipedia is not a Motorola catalog. Mikeblas 13:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep How do you establish notability for a phone anyway? For me, as long as the article is NPOV and not Motorola propaganda, it makes sense to have it listed, as so many other models are also listed. --Martin Wisse 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I would say it's advertising as the opening paragraph is worded quite strangely, but the flaws seem to go against an advertisement. Otherwise it seems like just a general information page on a phone. Aside from the "flaws", most of this information could be found on a site for cell phones. To answer the question asked above, something like the V120c is notable, since it was a standardly offered phone for Verizon and Alltell, and was one of the highest radiation-emitting phones. The iPhone is notable because of the news hype surrounding it. That's why I only propose a weak delete - there's no real guidelines for cell phone articles.  Zchris87v  14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm not sure, It seems to be notable enough. What exactly does a notable cellphone mean anyway? Maybe a cleanup of that whole list of motorola cellphones would help though, but that specific one doesn't seem any less notable.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick google search shows up more than 2 million hits for this model. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:GOOGLEHITS Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The number of search hits is irrelevant as the vast majority are listings on websites offering them for sale. People asking how a cellphone can be notable are really offering an argument for deletion: if it's not notable, it shouldn't have an article as per WP:N, and more specifically WP:CORP. The fact that there are other articles on other non-notable phones is not an argument to keep this one, but rather to list the other ones as well. Phones can be notable, as per Zchris87v's comment above, but this one isn't, and the fact that the article doesn't look like an advertisement does nothing to change that. Thomjakobsen 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Guess it is notible enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain why? Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT. Although it's a product of a large mobile phone company, it doesn't seem to have any unique or revolutionary design, features or sales or marketing campaign (or mentions in popular culture etc.) that gives it notability.--Alasdair 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Keep Without a cell phone guideline, we return to the primary notability criteria - are there multiple non trivial reliable sources? In this case trivial is the key word.  A million listings for sale are a million trivial sources.  What we need are specific articles (not from the manufacturer!) describing the merits of this phone or its cultural impact.  We have a few days to find some. Update: my logic stays my conclusion changes with the great sources now added.Obina 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete cell phone with no claim of notabilty. Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable cell phone. Keb25 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm not a big fan of cell phones, but a lot of people own them and Motorola is a familiar company, so I reckon this could/should be kept in some capacity. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In some capacity could be a list - is that OK with your view? We are struggling with sources to show this phone needs a full article.Obina 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep there is no doubt an abundance of third party sources about any given Motorola phone.  Bur nt sau ce  22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentAny phone? Takes us into a scary place - but no worry - we are discussing this phone. Please share the multiple non trivial reliable sources and truly we will be happy to agree.Obina 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is indeed covered in reliable sources and therefore passes WP:N and WP:V. In addition to the three reviews cited in the article there is also this, which I will add to the refs. Does 4 count as multiple? Mr. Google News shows 84 more here but WP:N no longer claims that particular requirement anyway. TreeKittens 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [Edit] I have added this source as a reference in the article. TreeKittens 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is also a much more detailed review published in PC Magazine here by Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, 14 March 2007. It claimed it is the cheapest unlocked GSM handset. I have expanded the article with this. Thanks TreeKittens 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - allthough I could live with this just being a redirect to an article dealing with it. There is no other reason than me just thinking Wikipedia should have articles on every cell phone there is, as long as this articles can be properly sourced (then you will of course lose some of the tiny brands). I think it would be great to find an article here if you wanted to know about a certain cell-phone. My impression is this is the old include/exclude discussion all over again. Greswik 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Though it would be nice for this to happen, there is no real reason as the information on this page can be found on most websites offering the phone for sale. In that case, wikipedia does not need to be a mirror of another site, since its purpose is to be an encyclopedia.  Zchris87v  14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like an argument for expansion rather than deletion - all the information in Wikipedia must be available elsewhere in order for us to comply with WP:V. If third-party sources have commented in detail on this phone (as demonstrated by the cited sources) then there is no reason to delete that information. --TreeKittens 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If WP:V is so important, then why are so few articles adequately referenced? -- Mikeblas 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. This one is referenced, but is still listed for deletion. --TreeKittens 15:29, 4 October 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.