Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung SGH-F250


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Samsung SGH-F250

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTDIR. No references, no claim to notability. Keφr (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable, no need for an article on the specific model. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Almost every mobile phone is notable in that it gets reviewed in multiple publications. However I'm struggling to find sources for this middle-market product; I only found 2 reviews, some short preview-type articles, and a bare specs listing on CNet. Not sure if this is quite enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but in the end all they provide specifications and reviews, which are often opinionated. There hasn't really been that much coverage over this particular model. The iPhone, in contrast, has a tonne Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 12:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * iPhone is not a particularly useful reference point for assessing notability. -—Kvng 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, what I meant is it's got a lot of coverage in things other than technology magazines. Something like Nokia 1100 perhaps, which got Reuters coverage Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 02:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with the article Samsung. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no sourced content to merge. There is no point in redirecting even, if the target will not discuss the redirect name. Even if it did, imagine if every article like that were merged into its parent company article… Keφr (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge would also create an WP:UNDUE issue in destination. -—Kvng 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Just need two independent sources. user:Colapeninsula found 7. -—Kvng 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This debate on phone models happens a fair bit. Search WP:Articles for deletion/Samsung and check the search suggestions. Personally I don't see this as a particularly notable phone, but that's just my two cents. We're not a directory, that's what technology magazines are for. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 02:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * merge into an article on the product line as the reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. All phones get reviewed somewhere (never mind product announcements). But this one doesn't even get the claimed two reviews. The one in French is not about this model. It just says at the bottom that the F250 is a better alternative because it's cheaper (at 130 euros) than the Samsung Elite at 200 euro, which is what the review is about. And http://www.mobile-review.com/ seems to says something about every phone. This article is unsourced WP:OR: "buggy software" etc. It's worth mentioning this phone in the general article about Samsung phones, but I don't see what's to be merged from here. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (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.