Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6260

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. Coredesat 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 6260

Nokia 6260 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

These products don't meet WP:PRODUCT. The article is a list of specifications which are completely un-cited, and reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure. The article is unlikely to be repaired as substantial references don't exist for such products.

Expired {{prod}} removed by User:NawlinWiki with the comment "decline prod, all the other Nokia phones seem to have articles; take to afd instead". This isj ust OTHERSTUFF, and acknolwedges the "Wikipedia is not a catalog" problem. Several other Nokia phone model articles have been deleted, and NawlinWiki doesn't explain why this one is immune. Mikeblas 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Prod should have been left through - NawlinWiki's argument was essentially WP:WAX. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The philosophy of wikipedia is to edit and improve articles over time. Improving a sub-standard article is far better than deleting it. This product meets WP:NOTE because it was the first ever Nokia clamshell phone. There certainly is a substantial reference for this product — Nokia's own website [1]. - Neparis 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. This is a popular product that has sold hundreds of thousands to millions. A huge number of sources and google hits, almost 500 articles - see [2]. The information presented is useful and encyclopedic. Calling it PR or advertising is absurd. Has anyone ever seen a magazine ad that looks like this article? It's simply a description of the product. Taking a step back, the subject is clearly encyclopedic, and taking pot shots at specific listings within a well-covered field would have a disruptive effect on the scope of the encyclopedia. It turns our coverage into swiss cheese. Wikidemo 22:07, 5 November 2007 (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.