Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia E70

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 keep. John254 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia E70

Non-notable cellular phone. Too few substantial, reliable third-party references exist to create a sustainable Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search [1] turned up 8.59 Million hits. I think that would be enough to find reliable references from. Tavix (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Try checking through those hits. The vast majority are for accessories, parts, and sales. A product is not notable just because it is for sale. See also WP:GHITS.-- Mikeblas (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to Mikeblas' comments above, you also have the requisite CNet/GSMArena/etc launch reviews which every cellphone from the Nokia 6010 to the iPhone get, and are largely opinion-based with reference to manufacturer spec sheets (I've not seen such things constitute a reliable source). While it is a nice little handset, fails WP:N. One comment I'll make here, while searching for the appropriate place to bring this up for discussion, is that in light of the many AfDs for mobile phones we've seen, it's a little frustrating that there's no guideline for electronic gadgets like there is music, and such... Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews are prima facie evidence that the phone is notable - the world has noticed it, see. There might be some scope for merging such articles into families of related models but the Nokia Eseries article indicates that the phones in this family are too heterogeneous in important respects such as the form-factor - the most notable thing about the E70 seems to be its foldout keyboard ears. For some light relief, I recommend this scurrilous comparison with the iPhone. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While "the world having noticed it" might meet your definition of notable, it doesn't not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability for commercial products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information, not findable by search of even the manufacturers site. This move to delete seems to be more of a religious movement than a constructive attempt to add to the usefulness of Wikipedia. ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Do you think that God told me to file this AfD? That's both absurd and inappropriate. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well written, not stubby, different from many other models, and while notability is subjective, I'd say this is above the line for electronic devices. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that there's sufficient third-party references to show notability. The article isn't perfect and does need work, but that shouldn't be a reason not to keep it. Wibbble (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You want to say the E70 isn't notable? What? Sure, the article might be wrote like an advert, but this is no cause for deletion. For god's sake, keep it. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Without a concrete reason why you think this product is notable, your response is no better than WP:ILIKEIT. What are the reasons the phone is notable, and why aren't they in the article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The E70 is one of the most important mobile phones in the market right now - and there are tons of articles of non-significant Nokia phones in Wikipedia. If different revisions of Nokia 3xxx are "notable", E70 is much more so. Mstuomel (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. GreyCat (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been marked for deletion? Riahc3 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)riahc3Riahc3 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (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.