Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia N73


 * 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. Ged UK  13:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nokia N73

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable commercial product. Article contains lots of unsubstantiated but grand claims, and some speculation, too. No substantial third-party sources given; I couldn't find any after searching. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Notability is not temporary. Mikeblas (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Here is a notability generating link: 1. Also, and I say this in good humor, while clearly WP can be a grand encyclopedia many of it's side passages are filled with extensive catalogs. Issues regarding product puffery can be addessed with editing. —  Noah  07:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The offered story is about Nokia X-series phones. The N73 is a specific N-series phone, and only incidentally covered. It therefore fails the "significant coverage" requirement to demonstrate notability. Is your other point that "yeah, there are lots of catalogs, so why bother fixing this article?" -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To put things in context, my original !vote was "I know you are not supposed to do this in an AfD but... wouldn't it be pretty if all these links were blue." Parts of wikipedia are beutifully well-sourced articles about important subjects and parts of it are lists of 1000s of barely notable movies, anime characters, and cell phones. I normally avoid this line of reasoning 'cause it's basically WP:OTHER... in this case it just felt right to do so. OTOH, the phone appears to me to be notable, we can source the specs in a way that isn't making grand claims, and I'm sure there are reviews in old paper magazines that haven't yet been digitized by google. —  Noah  14:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noah Salzman, your comment made me think of the image I've added to the right :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources on Google News, (My laptop's being an arse so can't list every cite there), They're not perfect but they're better than nothing, Passes GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This source and this translated source indicates that there is somehow a second life in use of this phone, at least in internationally. The rest of the phones in the series somehow have articles, so if this one gets deleted, by definition the rest need to go as well. The article is fine, but is very technical and detailed. It needs, at the most, a good edit down.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 13:28, 4 March 2015 (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.