Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1600 (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  

Most users participating were made aware of WP:PRODUCT and made their keep or delete vote upon the information provided. The general consensus was to keep the article as per needing "wikifying". Consequently, the result was keep. - Rudget Contributions 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nokia 1600
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod removed with the comment "It has been discussed". It was; the article had no consensus after an AfD which closed in August of 2006. After more than a year, the article is substantively unchanged: diff. It's just a catalog entry, consisting of only a list of features and a picture. The article admits that it's mostly the same as another model. -- Mikeblas 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; just a feature list without any proof of notability. But the removal of the PROD tag was in order - once the article has been on AfD, it can no longer be deleted via the PROD process, regardless of the AFD outcome. --B. Wolterding 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify; it just needs to be made into an enyclopedia entry to match Wikipedia's tone Martin B 11:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Namely, using which content from which independent sources? --B. Wolterding 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's "just" needed that treatment for more than fourteen months. That is, since its creation. I think this article has had ample chance to make something of itself. -- Mikeblas 11:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Distinct products of major notable companies are notable in their own right. THE KING 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary: Per WP:PRODUCT, they should generally be covered in the article about the company, or in an article about all products of the company - not in a separate article. --B. Wolterding 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - although I am aware of WP:PRODUCT, I would have to say that the article is notable in a least a small way, which should at least be a salvage. Rudget Contributions 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above concerns, if the article is wikified. NHRHS2010  talk  20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for zero assertion of notability. Notability is not inherited from a parent company, but no prejudice against merging related models into a single article. Someguy1221 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 11:44, 8 November 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.