245:
etc etc) is featured in its own article. Why shouldn't all (nokia) phones be? Or even all types of Coca Cola, or all types of
Ferrari? Agreed, a lot of those phone articles need work, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. If the article was nominated twice and twice kept, that's a strong indication that there's some merit to it being kept. Sometimes you just have to wait for someone to eventually pick of the glove and expand this article. Otherwise we will have to AfD a lot more than just this cellphone.
677:
deleting it? Just to make an example? If you allow so many, why bother deleting a few? So yes, my point is that if we refuse to draw a clear line, we should allow the borderline cases as well. Not because the item is so notable, but because deleting a few sets a completely arbitrary precedent. Why delete this one but not that one? There's no strict rule on it. If an item was bought by millions of people, it is at least somehow notable, right?
528:. Especially since, as Knowledge (XXG) matures, and our number of articles grows, arguments for inclusion have been undergoing much more rigorous scrutiny than before. I think the other "redirect" votes above are evidence that, for some of us at least, the previous consensus is no longer valid. Also, I would point out that the result of the first discussion was in fact
491:. Not that unique, that Apple Remote (better design though). Anyway, i could argue the buttons are different (they are, quite unusable as well), or other things that are slightly different. Point is, i really believe that when people search for gadgets in google, they often end up checking WP. There's no real line when it comes to products. Look for example at
566:
articles. Again, why bother with this article at all, it's here, it's been here 2 years, not enough people took offense. Again, what's the point of listing all inhabited places in the world, most never ever noted by any of us, but not to include a phone millions of people know from experience. That does not compute for me. And also,
565:
Well all that being said, the link to your main point of argument is broken! Of course consensus can change, but still, the consensus does not seem to be outright deletion. Also, i think the steady growth of WP isn't necessarily automatically maturing, since there are many new people who post rubbish
676:
or whatever else is available. Mind you, I did not even need to check those pages, i just knew they would exist. Are they all revolutionary or notable? No. Perhaps the BigMac, but surely not the Sansa. The thing is, once something is common practice, what's the point of singling out this article and
707:
One million Google hits prove nothing if none of them give enough information to make an article with more than just bare specs. Also, the problem with allowing borderline cases is the old "slippery slope" argument. If we allow all the "borderline" cases, then that means that effectively they are
681:
yielded more than 5 million hits (or 1 million depending on the method), surely that's notable? It's all a matter of definition. OSE doesn't help because of SO MUCH OSE. There's no end to what can be deleted under OSE rules, and therefor we should not even start. Other stuff does exist, and because
174:
This seems to illustrate a problem with the Wiki process. People will fight like apes to keep an article but then once the AfD closes they go on their merry way; never trying to make any of the improvements they swore were imminent and were all that was needed to make an article great. This is an
396:
for example? It's a remote, big deal, yet has a fully fledged article. I'm willing to bet more people had a nokia 1600 than a apple remote. But that's not the point, is it, it went through AfD twice, was kept twice, nothing has changed, so why the need to delete, nothing has changed and there's no
244:
lists them all with links to the product pages, which would mean that deleting them all results in a list without any context, other than numbers. I agree WP is not a product catalog, but that debate can go a long way, since every last combat tank, airplane, car, gameconsole and apple product (etc
152:
Previously nominated twice; no consensus was reached the first time, and after almost two years, the article remains unreferenced and establishes no claim to notability. The second nomination was about 8 months ago; no improvement since then. This is just another cellular phone. Knowledge (XXG) is
453:
partner-in-crime. However, my friend, I think that your arguments for keeping this article speak more towards the fact that there are a lot of other articles which deserve deletion (see Edison's
Caligula quote, above). Doing a cursory Google search for this phone only reveals the specs for this
283:
I understand where you're coming from, i have the same with non-notable songs and albums that can't easily be gotten rid of. But looking at the previous 2 AfD's for this article, there was a good bunch of people that wanted this kept, why not just accept the results of 2 other tries (in which you
588:
I have fixed the link above. I should point out that I did not vote for "outright deletion", either. And I agree with you that OSE is not policy. However, I tend to agree with it, especially, as I said before, because I think that the other articles you are citing probably don't deserve to be
570:
is NOT, I repeat, NOT policy! I could just as well write an essay outlining why OSE is a completely valid argument. OSE is used every day in WP, as an argument to create all sorts of stuff. Most of which never gets deleted. Using WP:OSE is just as invalid in this argument as me claiming OSE is.
364:
requirements. Simply being a product offered for sale by a large company in no way provides inherent notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not a surrogate of the vendor's webpage. If being offered for sale by a large company was sufficient notability to justify an article, then since notability is not
325:. I did accept it. I accepted it, then waited several months and noticed no improvement in the article. I did that twice. Note that the first AfD didn't keep the article--it just didn't reach a consensus. The "no deadline" doctrine doesn't apply to articles that don't need to be here because of
284:
were involved) and move on, surely there's plenty of other things that need cleaning up? Apparently the other 2 times it wasn't deleted because people saw merit to this article. As i've learnt here, a badly written article can sometimes stay, indefinitely, as you know
Knowledge (XXG) has no
391:
Why not? Knowledge (XXG) tries to list every Roman
Emperor that ever lived, every invention, every town (2 million or so), every creature...why not every product? I'm sure more people noted the 1600 than one of the hundreds of species of amoebe listed on WP. Also, what about
503:. I would agree to delete, if there was a policy to do so. But given the list of nokia models had so many articles for so many models, and given that this article survived AfD twice, it seems against my Vulcan logic to delete it this time round.
369:
offered for sale by a large company would be notable. I would not oppose a redirect to a list of Nokia products, although even such a list will sometimes have questionable notability. Imagine a list of every product ever sold by
708:
all inside the border, which means even less notable articles are now borderline, which by your argument should be allowed, and thus it keeps going. At some point we have to start knocking back the borderline cases.--
488:
84:
79:
690:
is a notable product...still millions know it, and it gets an article. Same goes for this phone. Millions used it, so it gets an article. 1 million google hits can't be wrong. Just my 2 cents.
466:
article. If you can find something specifically unique about it, then I would switch to keep. Until then, I would merge all the specs into the Nokia product article. Sorry, pardner.--
305:
Seeing a large number of article of a given sort which deserve deletion, but perhaps don't fit well as a group nomination, could make one feel a bit as
Caligula did when he said
145:
524:, is not a valid argument, and I would probably vote "merge and redirect" for the Blackberry client phones you linked to, as well. As for "it was already kept twice", see
460:
notable, in my opinion, simply because it can be used for so much, and is pretty unique as far as remotes go, in that it is a remote for a PC, which is not a common thing.
776:
I think the review cited is nothing more than an instruction manual, and therefore doesn't hold much weight for me. However, the article from Google scholar that
540:, as well. As for searching for gadgets on google, google WILL still give the redirect as a search result, and since I am urging that we keep all the Nokia 1600
266:
doesn't help much. I nominate articles as fast as I can, and I do wish I could delete all the cataloging articles about unreferenced, non-notable products. --
74:
520:
Consider me slapped. :) Alright, so I'm obviously wrong on the "PC remote is unique" argument. However, I think my other arguments are still valid. I think
462:
But cell phones are common as mud these days, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about this phone that is not already covered by the
755:
published reviews of this cellphone (one is already linked from the article). There are even a couple of articles mentioning this phone on
627:
So you're voting "keep" on the basis that we should delete the other stuff before we delete this one? Or am I mis-interpreting you?--
17:
285:
791:
715:
634:
596:
551:
473:
521:
112:
107:
817:
797:
768:
721:
699:
640:
619:
602:
580:
557:
544:
in the Nokia products article, it is not as if we are therefore preventing users from finding information about the phone.--
512:
479:
427:
406:
383:
346:
317:
297:
275:
254:
232:
215:
196:
162:
57:
116:
832:
36:
99:
153:
not a cell phone guide and
Knowledge (XXG) is not a Nokia catalog, so this material really doesn't belong here.
831:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
756:
678:
495:. Are they all notable phones? Yet they all have an article. Randomly deleting the Nokia 1600 after it was
444:
241:
648:
I'm voting keep because it is common practice on WP to have articles about consumer goods. Whether it be
525:
499:
seems a weird thing to do. Just because it is a simple phone doesn't make it less noteworthy than say, a
610:
But with all the crap there is to delete, this one isn't so necessary. And that's basically my point.
695:
615:
576:
508:
402:
293:
250:
228:
53:
537:
788:
712:
631:
593:
548:
470:
813:
589:
independent articles, either. Just because something's not policy doesn't mean it's not right.--
423:
342:
271:
211:
158:
806:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
379:
313:
682:
we let it, and have no desire to have it cease existing, this may exist as well. As if the
567:
415:
326:
263:
691:
611:
572:
504:
398:
289:
246:
224:
192:
180:
103:
49:
330:
785:
764:
709:
628:
590:
545:
467:
463:
794:
748:
718:
637:
599:
554:
476:
450:
361:
334:
809:
673:
661:
657:
419:
338:
267:
207:
184:
154:
393:
133:
375:
309:
780:
gave above IS more than that, and I have updated the article to reflect that.
747:. Consumer products such as cell phones are like books or movies: they become "
653:
500:
492:
188:
176:
95:
63:
206:
Redirect to list of Nokia products as is the case with several other models.
777:
760:
669:
665:
288:. This means it has forever to get improved, when its given the chance.
687:
683:
649:
371:
825:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
759:; the first one seems very interesting but I can't access it. --
522:
there is other stuff like this, so we should keep this one, too
751:" when people write about them (for example, reviews). There
223:
per the above if thelist already exists otherwise delete.
183:) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to redirect per
140:
129:
125:
121:
306:
805:
with articles about similar phones, like I did with
449:My initial instinct is to support Shoombooly, my
85:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1600 (3rd nomination)
80:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1600 (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
835:). No further edits should be made to this page.
493:BlackBerry#Phones with BlackBerry e-mail client
454:phone, and not any other reason it's notable.
240:, not because I want this article so bad, but
8:
487:I must slap you Aervanath, with this link:
782:It now meets basic notability guideines.
360:No references to show that it satisfies
308:that he "wished all Rome had one neck."
72:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
70:
586:Reply to reply to reply to comment
175:encyclopedia not a product guide.
24:
625:They'rrrrrrrrreeeeee grrrrrrreat!
526:WP:Consensus#Consensus Can Change
75:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1600
536:to keep. I would point you to
1:
397:deadline? Why the tenacity?
852:
818:23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
798:07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
769:12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
722:01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
700:23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
641:21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
620:21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
603:21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
581:20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
558:20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
513:19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
480:19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
437:switch to Keep, see below
428:01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
407:17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
384:17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
365:temporary, every product
347:01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
318:17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
298:17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
276:17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
255:17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
233:15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
216:15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
197:15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
163:15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
58:22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
828:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
646:Final words on this one
374:in the last 115 years.
679:"Nokia 1600" on Google
445:List of Nokia products
242:List of Nokia products
69:AfDs for this article:
451:WikiProject Orphanage
337:, like this one. --
46:KEEP (no consensus)
497:already kept twice
441:Merge and redirect
44:The result was
807:Nokia 6800 series
456:The Apple remote
843:
830:
705:Final refutation
143:
137:
119:
34:
851:
850:
846:
845:
844:
842:
841:
840:
839:
833:deletion review
826:
139:
110:
94:
91:
89:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
849:
847:
838:
837:
821:
820:
800:
774:switch to Keep
771:
757:Google scholar
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
464:cellular phone
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
320:
235:
218:
200:
199:
150:
149:
90:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
848:
836:
834:
829:
823:
822:
819:
815:
811:
808:
804:
801:
799:
796:
795:the Orphanage
793:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
742:
723:
720:
719:the Orphanage
717:
714:
711:
706:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
680:
675:
674:Sandisk Sansa
671:
667:
663:
662:Canon EOS 300
659:
658:Gameboy Micro
655:
651:
647:
644:
643:
642:
639:
638:the Orphanage
636:
633:
630:
626:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
604:
601:
600:the Orphanage
598:
595:
592:
587:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
569:
564:
561:
560:
559:
556:
555:the Orphanage
553:
550:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
482:
481:
478:
477:the Orphanage
475:
472:
469:
465:
461:
459:
452:
448:
446:
442:
438:
435:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:. Please see
413:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
395:
390:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:Sears Roebuck
368:
363:
359:
356:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
243:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
172:
171:Strong Delete
167:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
147:
142:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
827:
824:
802:
781:
773:
752:
744:
704:
645:
624:
607:
585:
562:
541:
533:
530:no consensus
529:
517:
496:
484:
457:
455:
440:
439:
436:
411:
388:
366:
357:
322:
302:
280:
259:
237:
220:
203:
170:
168:
151:
45:
43:
31:
28:
608:RRRRRRReply
187:. Cheers.
692:Shoombooly
654:Opel Astra
612:Shoombooly
573:Shoombooly
538:WP:PRODUCT
505:Shoombooly
501:Nokia 3310
489:PC Remotes
399:Shoombooly
362:notability
290:Shoombooly
247:Shoombooly
225:Jasynnash2
96:Nokia 1600
64:Nokia 1600
50:TigerShark
786:Aervanath
710:Aervanath
670:Palm Treo
629:Aervanath
591:Aervanath
546:Aervanath
468:Aervanath
169:Redirect
810:Towel401
666:Twinkies
534:defaults
532:, which
420:Mikeblas
339:Mikeblas
286:deadline
268:Mikeblas
221:Redirect
208:Thetrick
204:Redirect
185:Thetrick
155:Mikeblas
146:View log
749:notable
688:Caramac
684:Whopper
650:Big Mac
485:Comment
412:Comment
389:Comment
323:Comment
303:Comment
281:Comment
260:Comment
113:protect
108:history
568:WP:OSE
416:WP:WAX
376:Edison
358:Delete
327:WP:NOT
310:Edison
264:WP:WAX
141:delete
117:delete
803:Merge
789:lives
713:lives
632:lives
594:lives
563:Reply
549:lives
518:Reply
471:lives
418:. --
331:WP:OR
189:L0b0t
177:L0b0t
144:) – (
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
814:talk
778:Itub
765:talk
761:Itub
745:Keep
696:talk
652:'s,
616:talk
577:talk
542:info
509:talk
424:talk
403:talk
394:this
380:talk
367:ever
343:talk
335:WP:N
314:talk
294:talk
272:talk
251:talk
238:Keep
229:talk
212:talk
193:talk
181:talk
159:talk
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
54:talk
753:are
443:to
333:or
329:or
816:)
792:in
784:--
767:)
716:in
698:)
686:/
672:,
668:,
664:,
660:,
656:,
635:in
618:)
597:in
579:)
552:in
511:)
474:in
458:is
426:)
405:)
382:)
345:)
316:)
296:)
274:)
262:.
253:)
231:)
214:)
195:)
161:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
56:)
48:.
812:(
763:(
694:(
614:(
575:(
507:(
447:.
422:(
401:(
378:(
341:(
312:(
292:(
270:(
249:(
227:(
210:(
191:(
179:(
157:(
148:)
138:(
136:)
98:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.