Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 7280


 * 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 – press coverage with 'best of 2004' award = notability. Krakatoa Katie  07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nokia 7280

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. This article provides no verifiable claim of notability. Too few substantial, reliable references exist to produce an article that itself is not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret account 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nominator's arguments. If several references with substantial coverage of the product in reliable and indepednent sources are found and added with inline cites by the end of the AFD period I would reconsider. Google searches per se are not convincing, since they are cluttered with reprints of the manufacturer's press release and many are websites of dubious reliability. Please spare us arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety that there are lots of other articles with no proof of notability. Edison (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An especially interesting article - I'd never heard of a lipstick phone before. Plenty of notability, as usual with such items:  Google news.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is a reference, why should it not include cellphone reference, but yet have biology reference? Dharbigt (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.68.231 (talk)
 * Keep, wikipedia has established a standard of phones having articles. If you remove this one it just gives us a big mysterious gap where this article shoudl be.--Him and a dog 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note I relisted the debate as the keeps doesn't have a policy based reasoning, no vote. Secret account 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This model may be notable enough on its own merits (witness the 2004 Best Of award) for its own article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have made a few "top [number]" lists, and I found a decent sized review.-Wafulz (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Has won a "best of" award, specifically praised in other awards. Certainly notable and deserving of its own article. ~ Carlin U T C @ 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep-- why the hell not? Sean MD80 talk 04:04, 22 January 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.