Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia E65


 * 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. JERRY talk contribs 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nokia E65

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable cellular phone. There are too few substantial, reliable, third-party articles to support a meaningful wikipedia article about this product. Mikeblas (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep too few indicates that this is a cookie-cutter nomination for which the sources (actual and potential) have not been properly researched. My impression is that the article is quite adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't attack people's nominations in this way, especially when the evidence supports the nominator's argument: One citation is broken, and the other is a forum post. The only reference at all, then, is likely unacceptable per WP:SPS. Yes, it's on Nokia's site, but it's some user's technical support question with no forum admin/mod response (rather than, say, a copy of an official announcement by Nokia on some matter posted by a mod on the company's behalf), making it WP:OR TheBilly (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is completely inadequate. It reads like an advertisement -- a marketing specification brochure, to be exact. What's at question is the notability of the phone. The problem with notability here is that too few reliable third party articles to support a Wikipedia article here; that is, the phone isn't notable because there aren't enough noteworthy publications about it. I'm not sure how using the phrase "too few" in the nomination disproves that assertion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point about too few is that it indicates that you either haven't checked the sources or that you are not sure how many of them are good enough. Since we don't need many sources to establish notability, the phrase indicates notability rather than the reverse. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden . Greswik (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per what I said above: No good references. One citation is broken, and the other is a forum post (a post between some average users with a tech support question, at that). Glancing at the article for 3 seconds you might be impressed at how long it is, but glancing for 4 seconds you realize it's just a copy+paste of the phone's specs. There is no encyclopedic content here. Per WP:COMPANY, non-notable products by notable companies should noramlly go in the company's article (if they're kept at all) and the content should be about the significance of the product not a list of its features. This article violates "not an indiscriminate collection of information". Cookie-cutter articles deserve cookie-cutter deletions TheBilly (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the external reference to a review as a cite and removed the bad reference. More references are out there if needed.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The words "non-notable" and "Nokia" can't possibly go together.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks adequate references to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With 275000 Ghits I say you should be pretty much of a gambler to say there are no good refs- it's, IMHO, obvious they are there, we just haven't found them - and that's not a reason for deletion. For a ref in Norwegian - which we don't like, cause so few can read it- try . This is by The Consumer Council of Norway, isn't this an example of a ref we could have used, if it just was in English? Greswik (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a Symbian Series 60 Phone. There are in no way too few applications for this OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.157.112 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that after adding his comment, 80.152.157.112 removed the AfD notice from the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 9 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.