Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 3110 classic


 * 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   no consensus. causa sui (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nokia 3110 classic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of gadgets for sale, now, recently, or in the past. No evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here.  DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep article looks like it is off to a good start. Non-notability not established by AfD submitter. --Kvng (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable.  Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep(for now) Added an apparently independent "webzine" article as a reference. Based on the other current cellphone articles, this appears to meet the standard criteria for inclusion; however, I agree that this current practice is not reasonable. It is not practical to have an article on every model cellphone, laptop, coffee maker, ect. that ever is marketed. Some of the models probably had marketable lifespans measured in months or perhaps even weeks. The majority of these should be consolidated into a list, with articles for truly noteworthy ones linked to the list.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legion211 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 25 August 2011 (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.