Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia BL-5B


 * 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. basically for WP:PRODUCT, WP:NOT and basically no content other then that list JForget  13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nokia BL-5B

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this item is a parts catalog entry more suitable for an on-line shopping guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is a (non-exploding) cell phone battery. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this battery. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I don't see any potential for abuse here, and a number of these batteries are appropriately sourced; I might hold out that this one would be too. Not strongly opposed to deletion, but I wouldn't mind giving this some leeway. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the potential for making Wikipedia into a parts catalog? Abductive  (reasoning) 09:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fair. Like I said, I'm a weak keep, willing to wait on this one, which is an "argument" that gets thrown around on lots of AfDs, yet only in cloaked terms. Perhaps my approach to AfD is nuanced, but well written/small stubs that have limited aspirations are less problematic than Teh World's Most Awesome Cumpany/Band style articles. I'm not a blowhard on these issues. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are some million people using it.Jack007 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep coz there is no valid reason in deleting it The drunken guy (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Indeed, it's not a parts catalog. Here's an opportunistic question: can this article be brough up to decent, say, B-class status? No. An article on Nokia 3210 (a bestselling, perhaps seminal cellphone from '99) can be brought up to fairly decent level because there is plenty of sources. An article on a Nokia battery will remain unsourced simply because there are no public and independent sources. It's not much different from a generic AA battery sold under your local supermarket brand. NVO (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - These kind of articles are very useful in Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it useful? The entire article is just a list of the phones it fit in. And it gets single digit daily page views, so people aren't using it much. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a parts catalog. Should there be an article on every fastener in the parts bin? 1/2 inch zinc coated flat washer makes as much sense in an encyclopedia as this article. Also lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails notability. Edison (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per JoeChill and no significant coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no article here. If someone want a list of compatible phones they can go to the Nokia website. Is there a Wikipedia is not a warehouse for technical specifications in WP:NOT?--RDBury (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Location (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoeChill, Edison and Location. Cmprince (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PRODUCT, it's a battery, not even a phone. If this battery had done anything during it's existance besides running a phone, it might be a different story, but it just doesn't hold enough power to keep this article going. AP1787 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - even though some people might get a charge out of this, I find it leaves me flat. I agree that this article can be discharged. I'd be LIon if I said there was any voltage behind more articles of this type. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2009 (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.