Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung SGH-F210


 * 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   no consensus. I discounted the first comment after the nominator because it focused on the articles current status without discussing potential or making an attempt to find sources. Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Samsung SGH-F210

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

Non-notable product, only primary sourced, not likely to be expanded.  MBisanz  talk 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Product not notable, no external 3rd party sources. LK (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever, go ahead and do what you think is best, you obviously know more than me about these things. Cyberdemon007 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would appear to have plenty of avaliable sources to allow expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No claims or signs of notability in article.  TJ   Spyke   04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be a variety of sources out there, the article just needs to be expanded, with more sources included. No reason to delete it I think... -- Pax85 (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an article of the form "X exists" with a link to the manufacturer's website. Wikipedia is not a catalog or a mirror of manufacturer's catalogs of current non-notable products. If there are multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of such a gadget it might be notable, but there is no evident this gadget is. Edison (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is plenty of evidence in the link I provided above that there are multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of this phone. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 23 February 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.