205:. Colonel, please identify which of the Google News items are your proposal as substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. This seems to be the best approach for proponents of the article to demonstrate its notability, and many of the news items seem to be reprints of the manufacturer's press release introducing its release, or websites of unknown reliability. Just throwing out a Google search is less convincing. Please specify the ones you feel best prove notability. Then it would be great if you would add them to the article as inline cites. Then I would consider changing my "vote."
289:
way (or not). This review blurts out a bunch of specs, as if it's quoting from a press release, and is only 346 words long. It offers no insight into why the product is any better than any cell phone; in other words, it completely underscores why cellular phones aren't notable. The reviewer even says that it's "Yet another Series 60 phone".
250:
Many of the sources appear to be of low quality. At least indicate, here, links to several you like: reliable sources with substantial coverage (not regurgitation of a press release, not a blog where anonymous users talk about the phones). That is not too much to ask. A number like 1730 Google News
328:
How do we determine that "Infosynchworld" is a reliable and independent source? It has an Alexa rating below 21,000, and appears to have blurbs on lots of cell phones. Is it recognized as an authoritative source? Just that plus "a second such source" might not be sufficient. Has it been written up
288:
This link leads to a preview of an unreleased product. This compromises the review: maybe the reviewer didn't have a final version of the product, or the firmware, or software, or both. Maybe some accessories weren't available, or not. Maybe the vendor didn't even let them play with it in any real
365:
Infosynch says "In addition to the latest tech news, we also keep an exhaustive database that includes just about every cell phone on the market." Is this reference part of that "exhaustive database?" If so then it does not show that this model is more notable than the least notable one on the
223:
There are 1730 hits in that list and they are all from Google News which indicates a good level of notability. I skimmed it to determine that there was some substantial coverage - reviews and the like. Fixing up the article is not my job nor is there any time pressure to do so because
228:. In such circumstances, where the content is harmless and uncontroversial, the article can be left with appropriate tags indefinitely. AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a stick to try and force editors to do your bidding. Per good folk wisdom,
121:
Non-notable commercial product. Knowledge is not a cellular phone guide. Knowledge is not a Nokia catalog. Too few substantial and reliable references exist to support a
Knowledge article that itself is not an advert or a review.
421:
399:- completely non-notable mobile phone. If any of your sources do indicate notability over and above the average run-of-the-mill product, please add them as at the moment this article is also completely lacking in
140:. Although I agree with the nom somewhat, we've treated every other phone model as though it is deserving of its own entry. I don't see why this would be deleted while all of the others would remain.
420:
Easily verifiable and clearly notable as a major phone from a major manufacturer. Plenty of reliable sources available for plenty of encyclopedic information. I found this after 30 seconds effort
314:
AFAIC, this first hit meets most of this criterion. We just need a second such source as confirmation and we're done. I've looked ahead and find there to be several more. Q.E.D.
351:- a print newspaper. This was so notorious for its misprints that it is lampooned as the Grauniad. There are no guarantees from any sources but perfect is the enemy of good.
201:
Knowledge is not a cell phone catalog. The argument by Kevin that all other cell phone articles have been kept is just plain wrong, since several have been deleted. See also
114:
292:
If we rely on such references to build articles, we'll end up with nothing more than reviews and press releases right here in the encyclopedia. --
312:
a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
427:
17:
87:
82:
91:
423:
181:
74:
202:
157:. Actually, many other phones have been deleted and not all the others remain. This is one of the reasons why your
463:
36:
462:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
408:
356:
319:
277:
237:
189:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
444:
448:
431:
412:
375:
360:
338:
323:
301:
281:
260:
241:
214:
193:
170:
149:
131:
56:
404:
352:
315:
273:
233:
185:
145:
297:
225:
166:
127:
440:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
371:
334:
256:
210:
78:
141:
344:
293:
162:
158:
123:
400:
348:
49:
108:
367:
330:
307:
270:
252:
206:
70:
62:
347:. Seems ok to me. Some way down that long list of other news sources is
456:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
230:
if you want a job doing properly, you have to do it yourself
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
466:). No further edits should be made to this page.
329:with substantial coverage in the print media?
8:
251:hits, by itself, does not prove notability.
269:Let's start at the beginning with the
161:argument is fundamentally flawed. --
7:
366:market: they would both be covered.
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
449:20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
432:23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
413:20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
376:21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
361:01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
339:23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
324:23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
302:22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
282:22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
261:21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
242:19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
215:19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
194:22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
171:22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
150:22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
132:15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
57:00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
46:No consensus to delete/Keep
483:
459:Please do not modify it.
439:: notable mobile phone.
32:Please do not modify it.
184:. Evidently notable.
424:Random Fixer Of Things
180:Sources - we got 'em:
343:Here's what they say
226:we have no deadline
203:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
310:guideline is that
474:
461:
401:Reliable Sources
345:about themselves
112:
94:
54:
34:
482:
481:
477:
476:
475:
473:
472:
471:
470:
464:deletion review
457:
85:
69:
66:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
480:
478:
469:
468:
452:
451:
434:
415:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
353:Colonel Warden
316:Colonel Warden
290:
285:
284:
274:Colonel Warden
264:
263:
245:
244:
234:Colonel Warden
218:
217:
196:
186:Colonel Warden
175:
174:
173:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
479:
467:
465:
460:
454:
453:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
433:
429:
425:
422:
419:
416:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
377:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
272:
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
129:
125:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
458:
455:
436:
417:
396:
349:The Guardian
311:
229:
198:
177:
154:
137:
120:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
182:Google News
71:Nokia 7610
63:Nokia 7610
271:first hit
294:Mikeblas
163:Mikeblas
142:-- Kevin
124:Mikeblas
115:View log
441:Snowman
155:Comment
88:protect
83:history
52:JForget
397:Delete
368:Edison
331:Edison
253:Edison
207:Edison
199:Delete
159:WP:WAX
92:delete
232:. :)
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
445:talk
437:Keep
428:talk
418:Keep
409:talk
405:fchd
403:. -
372:talk
357:talk
335:talk
320:talk
308:WP:N
306:The
298:talk
278:talk
257:talk
238:talk
211:talk
190:talk
178:Keep
167:talk
146:talk
138:Keep
128:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
113:– (
447:)
430:)
411:)
374:)
359:)
337:)
322:)
300:)
280:)
259:)
240:)
213:)
192:)
169:)
148:)
130:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:--
443:(
426:(
407:(
370:(
355:(
333:(
318:(
296:(
276:(
255:(
236:(
209:(
188:(
165:(
144:(
126:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.