Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung U900 Soul


 * 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. Weak consensus that reviews don't confer notability in this case. lifebaka++ 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Samsung U900 Soul

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

Non-notable phone. NOT. No sources, no indications of notabilty. Delete Exxolon (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; also heavily laden with unreferenced original research. MuZemike (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites two different product reviews, and individual models of mobile phones have traditionally been considered notable. --Eastmain (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews don't indicate notability - I can pull up a review of a particular make of frozen lasagne but that wouldn't make it notable and I question your assertion - I successfully nominated a phone a while back and it was deleted for being a similar article to the above - see Articles for deletion/Nokia 6500 slide Exxolon (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The reviews, from websites, have a promotional tone which suggests they deserve careful scrutiny to determine whether they are reliable sources for the purpose of determining whether a subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Are there any articles about this product in the mainstream press? Individual models of mobile phones have no inherent notability, and many deletions in previous AFDs provide evidence of this, contrary to what Eastmain states. Phones or other gadgets which are breakthroughs and have societal effects have been more successful in past AFDs. Not every new model released by a manufacturer is automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because a couple of people review it in online review sites. Edison (talk) 02:05, 13 September 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.