Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6500 slide


 * 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. There have been a lot of rumblings about the viability of these articles, and a lot of precedence to both keep and delete them. I have found (using the template for nokia linked below), several well referenced articles, and several poorly referenced/unreferenced articles. Many of the redlinks in the template are the result of prior deletions, but many of the redlinks have never even been attempted to be made into articles. A phone is notable as a product if it has independent reviews, is somehow (for its time) new or innovative, or otherwise notable for its uniqueness, availability, sales number, etc. This particular article doesn't seem to have any of the factors needed. I'm glad this isn't a blanket nomination any longer, as many of the articles are indeed worthy of inclusion based on the referencing/reviews alone. In my honest opinion, this AFD should not be used for precedence for future deletions - each should be taken case by case. (and this is only Nokia! I'm sure there are just as many articles/prior deletions for other product lines/companies.)  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nokia 6500 slide

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

This is a blanket nomination of all Nokia Phone articles. We have probably close to 100 articles and more potential ones as redlinks. We're not an advertising service or a Nokia product catalogue and shouldn't have an article on every single phone they've ever released. Only those phones who can demonstrate independently verified notability with reliable sources showing their importance should have individual articles, all others this article should be Deleted or Merged into a list. Exxolon (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC) *Should've mentioned you can navigate to all the articles in question via Template:Nokia phones Exxolon (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's customary to include links to every article you plan to delete this way and to place an AFD template on all of them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep some; Merge and redirect most to more comprehensive articles. I'd suggest not to one article on all Nokia phones, but an article for each series might work better; covering related phones in one article makes sense and gives a better idea of the whole when much of the information is common.  Articles on series would allow better article flow and help reader understanding, I feel. Some individual models may have enough sourced information to make a separate article feasible, but I feel most of these don't. I also feel that a sensible attempt to work with the editors who create these articles would be better than AFD, which is conflict-prone.  Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to an appropriate target, which would most likely be an article on this phone generation or series. Effectively all the information in this article is specifications which would be better handled as a description of common features across a range of phones and a short paragraph for each phone (or a table row) showing the differences. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for procedural reasons. Opposing deletion of unspecified articles. Suggest listing. Fg2 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rescinding "Keep" now that it's just for this article. (Not expressing an opinion.) Fg2 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep only for incomplete nomination. Come on. SashaNein (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this gadget satisfies WP:N. This is not a Nokia catalog. There is no basis for having an article for every product which was ever offered for sale. Edison (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the nomination for this particular article is complete and the subject doesn't meet notability criteria for a stand alone article. I may comment on the others when they are nominated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this article. Merge all others. Individual models are not notable. A single article on each generation of phone would be enough, with external links to the nokia sites. Wikipedia is indeed not a catalogue!Yobmod (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll rescind the nomination for all articles and we'll run this one on this model only if everyone agrees. I'll then use that as a basis to decide on how to proceed regarding the others. Exxolon (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've amended my vote on this basis. I feel that the best approach would be to work with the articles in this category to find the best and most useful approach to documenting them, which would probably be articles covering a range of related phones and their common features.  This would remove a lot of duplication between articles on very similar pieces of equipment. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll stick with delete. Same argument applies for individual articles as for all of them.Yobmod (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment my original "delete" still stands thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - the article is crap, and doesn't seem to assert any kind of encyclopedic notability for the equipment. If those things exsit they should be added, otherwise some manner of merging the phones into just a few articles is likely a better solution.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect at this time. If, later, enough notable content is associated with this model to merit a separate article, then spin it off. (I doubt that there will ever be a case for a separate article, but we have no good reason to bolt the door.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:50, 27 June 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.