Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 9110 Communicator


 * 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 redirect to Nokia 9000 Communicator. Whether and what to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nokia 9110 Communicator

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod which claims that this phone made Nokia the largest manufactuer of PDAs in the world. The article carries no references to substantiate this claim, doesn't carry this claim itself, and doesn't even identify the phone as a PDA. With a brief introduction, a list of "specifications" and a linkfarm, it's just an advertisement. Mikeblas 15:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Is every product released by every vendor in every business worthy of a Wikipedia page? It's hard to imagine a notability standard that low. MarkBul 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable product by a major manufacturer. A systematic listing of products selling by the millions is WP:PAPER reasonable. "Specifications" (why the scare quotes?) is factual information, and you know what to do with link farms. Weregerbil 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if we stipulate that cataloging large-selling products in WikiPeida is reasonable per WP:PAPER, there are many other rreasons to not do it and is not necessary. Sometimes, quotes are just quotes. Here, they're around a direct quotation from this article, which uses "specifications" instead of "features" or "capabilities". -- Mikeblas 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What would some of those many reasons be? Several independent sources for the product are already shown, satisfying WP:N. Here we have a problem though: more sources showing notability could easily be added, but the creator of this AfD is already critiquing the article for being a link farm. Is there a policy reason for deleting this article? So far we seem to have mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Weregerbil 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiki is not a user's guide.--JForget 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - This phone is notable for, if nothing else, for being Nokia's flagship model. I understand where this AfD is coming from. When this phone was lauched, there were no GSM networks in the USA. In Europe, however it received the same kind of hype that the Apple iPhone is now getting in the US. (A GSM phone by the way :-) I do think we should do a lot of merging of phone articles. This article could be merged to Nokia 9210, with whom it shares its packing, but differs in software and processor. I have however proposed merging to Nokia 9000, with the same operating system, (GEOS and processor architecture, i386. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Not one of our finest articles, but it is mercifully brief, and gets the basics across quickly in a readable style. There are some truly annoying catalog-style articles in Wikipedia but this is not one of them. The availability of open source software for this platform should increase the article's value to our readers. I'm uneasy about some of the external links because they appear to be personal sites. Maybe they could be replaced with some generic comment in the article stating that certain utilities for the 9110 might be found by a web search. If the article were rewritten to be more encyclopedic I'd change my vote to a full Keep. EdJohnston 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Instead of deleting the article it should be merged with Nokia 9000 Communicator, like some of the other Nokia phone articles. —TigerK 69 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge Not notable enough compared to iphone/original treo. Mbisanz 01:26, 20 September 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.