Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 1680 classic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nokia 1680 classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Short, non-notable phone that is unlikely to expand. JayJayTalk to me 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article definitely needs more sources once the sources are located and added, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. We can't delete stubs simply because it's 'unlikely' to expand. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PRODUCT: [1], [2], [3]. -- Trevj (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reviews in all the usual places. Above links and here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.