Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qmobile A900


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Qmobile A900

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Data sheet for a telephone with no indication of its notability and lacking independent sources demonstrating such notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article created this month. Tag it for notability, use WP:PROD or just give it time to develop. ~KvnG 14:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if it was created yesterday, last week or last month - if it doesn't meet our inclusion crtieria then it should never have been created in the first place and should be deleted now.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that this article was created in good faith and in accordance with notability policy by an editor with a better understanding of the topic than any of us. Additional time will allow editors to find sources. Since this is a Pakistani topic, that may be more difficult than usUal. ~KvnG 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to assume good faith, but we don't allow subject matter experts to publish original thought or original research (including that relating to commercial products) just because they are subject matter experts. Again, a topic must have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources before we create an article. We can't use our crystal ball to gaze into the future and guess that there might be coverage later on. I'm not suggesting the author was disruptive in creating the article, just misguided and perhaps a little over-enthusiastic.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am assuming the author of this article has access to sources that we have not seen. The author apparently lives in Pakistan so I don't think this is a far-fetched assumption. ~KvnG 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm assuming that if he did, he would have added them by now or at least hinted at the existence of such sources. Just assuming there might be sources out there somewhere isn't enough. After all of that, I'm happy for it to be deleted without prejudice against recreation if the author manages to show up with some sources at some later stage.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - things don't get articles and then become notable. They need to be notable before they get articles. Happy to accept this was created too soon.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Makes me laugh when you folks are saying that its not notable.. Lol, what wikipedia basically wants.. It wants an article on which thousands of books having ISBN number are written.. Oh, common there aren't books on a telephone grow up dude.. whether this article is deleted or whatever it was not profiting me and never will.. I just thought, it should be on the wikipedia.. Checkout this article its a phone of same brand with no world class references but it still on wiki with no freakin' deletion tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QMobile_Noir_Quatro_Z4 .. ARK (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thousands? No, just two would do it (per "multiple") and they don't even have to be books. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT are never good arguments. Any actual, policy-based reasons for keeping this?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude, there aren't so many references regarding a cellphone.. Just to show its existence.. Some references should be needed.. Moreover, you and I know that many of the articles on Wikipedia are orphan.. No policy apply on them, but they are on Wikipedia, you should wait so the article could be enhanced.. ARK (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're missing the entire point of WP:N and WP:V. We don't create articles about things and then wait for them to become notable. You have it the wrong way around. Policy applies equally to all articles - if you find other articles about other subjects that don't meet our inclusion criteria then you should offer them up for deletion just as Carlossuarez46 has here. We don't improve the quality of the project by setting a new lowest common denominator.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The same point I am discussing.. Again and again you're saying its not notable, how could it be..?? Its a cellphone brand only available in Pakistan.. If wiki doesn't allow article on a phone which is available only in one country then its fine to kick this article off..  But yeah if wiki policy that you're mentioning allows article on a phone brand like this, (I know it allows) then bro its totally nonsense to talk about notability.. The thing is notable if you look through it again.. ARK (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with arbitrarily "allowing" something or not. It's "allowed" if it's notable - that goes for almost any subject in existence. If it's not notable, it's not notable and you've suggested it's not (...how can it be?)  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have the google you can check it's notability and add some more references rather than commenting on notability and standards.. ARK (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Per St★lwart. The article seems to be a bit of OR as well. If deleted, it is probably best to userfy it. I checked its notability on Google as well, and couldn't find much. In any way, I'll fix a bit the wording of the article.Dmatteng (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2014 (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.