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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG Voyager (VX10000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This phone doesn't have enough substantial references to support a meaningful Wikipedia article; just piles of reviews and press releases. Mikeblas 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This product has only been on the market a week...not nearly long enough to confer notability. will381796 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - the iPhone hadn't even been released yet when it had an article, the amount of time a product has been on the market shouldn't be the defining attribute as to if an article should exist. This comment was signed by User:TheUncleBob but is no longer attached to the signature due to the insertion of other comments.

- Comment - the iPhone has been released for a couple of months now. Simply because it hasn't been released in your market doesn't mean it hasn't attained notability in other markets. If this phone has been previously released in another market and has gained notability there, then I change my vote to "keep." If not, my opinion stays. will381796 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The iPhone article dates back to two years before the phone was released. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I'm surprised that it wasn't delete two years before its release. I would have nominated it as wikipedia is not a crystal ball and an unreleased product cannot be notable. That being said, once the iPhone was announced it was notable as it was Apple's first foray into the cell phone market and due to the very unique features and design of the phone. LG releasing yet ANOTHER phone in their long list of cell phones hardly makes the Voyager notable in its own right. Perhaps a section in the iPhone's article listing and describing some of the "iPhone Killers" that have been released following the iPhone's introduction would be more appropriate, as that would be the only reason that the LG Voyager should even be mentioned anywhere. It is not notable in its own right. will381796 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well looking at this direct comparison by Cnet, the phone seems to be able to hold its own against the iphone and be a notable achievement. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A good Cnet review doesn't confer notability. By this logic, the "Motorola Q9c" also compared should have its own article too. From the brief search I performed, it doesn't. will381796 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ops, i thought I removed that. I had created a custom comparison of the 2 phones. I briefly put the Motorola in because I wanted to compare something for a friend. My mistake. --ZeWrestler ^Talk01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless, it is your opinion that having a higher Cnet review rating than the iPhone confers notability. Being able to "hold its own" against the iPhone is purely a matter of opinion (which is what a review consists of). This makes no sense when deciding what products deserve inclusion. Having only been on the market for 10 days does not permit this phone to have had any appreciable impact on the cell phone market. Users have not been flocking to the Voyager rather than going to the iPhone. The Voyager, while cool, has not added anything unique to the cell phone market. will381796 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I should note that the iPhone article was deleted several times before the phone was released [1], including failing a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone. The previous revisions were eventually restored to the edit history, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the amount of time that an item has been on the market should *not* be a reason for determining if an article should be deleted or not. I could pull up plenty of articles about products that haven't even been released yet (or never will be, like, say The Phantom). What we should be discussing instead is "What makes a cell phone notable"? I'd say a cell phone by one of the largest cell phone manufacturers that includes some major features (touch screen, true HTML Web Browsing, etc) for the first time is pretty notable. The article needs some work, yes... But deleted? Naw.TheUncleBob 14:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe someone should go and nominate THAT product for deletion as it is a cancelled product. I don't understand how a hypothetical, never going to be released product can be notable enough for inclustion. I can go incorporate a company and say that I'm going to release a flying car in the next 3 years. I can draft up some 3d images of what it will look like. I'll make up some of its projected specs (estimated speed, MPG, empty weight etc). Can I go make an article on my not-yet existing article? It would be the first flying car, after all... My understanding is that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. How can the inclusion of a not-yet existing product be justified? Similarly, how a product that has hardly been on the market long enough to reach a large number of consumers be notable? As for its features...come on. These two features are not innovations in the design of cell phones much like the iPhone was. And many cell phones already released in Japan and Korea already have features far beyond these phones. Hardly notable. But whatever. will381796 15:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, you couldn't make an article about your own company and flying car - that'd be using Wikipedia to advertise your own product. :) Anywhoo, my point wasn't about these features themselves, but the fact that one of the world's largest cell phone manufactures has, for the first time, combined these features into a cell phone for mass release in one of the world's largest cell phone markets. As for the amount of time the product has been on the market - can you show me *any* Wiki policy or guideline that addresses the amount of time a product is on the market in regards to the notability of the product? Until then, I don't see how this arbitrary "time table" you've introduced can be allowed to have any influence on the determination of the inclusion of this product on Wikipedia. And, as much as I hate to pull out other articles to show my point, [[2]] is an article dating back to Jan 2004 about a product that wasn't released until Nov 2006. The article has come a long way since then. At the time, the product wasn't yet released, nor did anyone know if it was going to be released, nor did anyone know how much (if at all) it was going to disrupt the market at the time of the product's release - but none of this prevented the article from becoming both a "Good Article" and a "Featured Article". TheUncleBob 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article needs work, yes, but considering this phone is a rather large part of Verizon Wireless's 2007 Holiday line up, not to mention that it's going to draw a lot of iPhone comparisons (and thus, a lot of people are going to be looking up info on it), I think the article for this phone can be well developed. As with any Wikipedia article though, it'll take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. TheUncleBob 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After the holidays, should the article be deleted? The article doesn't mention Verizon's holiday line-up, and doesn't mention the phone's role in the line up. Your assertion, like most information about this phone, isn't easily verifiable. -- Mikeblas 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree completely with TheUncleBob --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is actually one of the more notable cell phones. Needs more references, but keep. - Rjd0060 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mikeblas do some research before prod/afd'ing phone articles. This is frequently used as an example of an iphone killer / iphone clone. [3][4]Rhobite 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your first link is to a blog post of less than 90 words. This is not a substantial, useful link, per WP:V. The second link is another review, just over 1000 words. -- Mikeblas 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that the phone has been covered at the two biggest gadget blogs, in multiple articles. Please search around if you're still not convinced that this is a notable phone. Rhobite 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If word count is important to you Mikeblas, which it shouldn't be, here is one by Cnet with over 3000 words. As Rhobite said, just google around and you'll find plenty of sources with little to no trouble at all. I'd work more on this article myself, but I have finals in under 2 weeks I'm trying to keep my head above water here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Word count is important to everyone on WikiPedia. Read WP:V to learn about how only substantial references are useful. It also explains how self-published material on a blog isn't a viable reference. -- Mikeblas 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable to me ZyMOS 06:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article seems alright to me, just needs a few more sources (even though there is a sufficient number already) to help. If you think about it, all you have to do is search. I'd recommend trying to add sources and/or notifying the user who created the page before actually propping up for deletion. — Rudget _{contributions} 11:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 'Reviews' (if independent) often provide meaningful, critical and neutral evaluations. As pointed above, this phone has a few reviews already (and potentially more in the near future). Also, the article should now be deleted when the phone stops being current (this is an encyclopedia, not a current catalog of whatever). --Yury Petrachenko 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems pretty good. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Can be re-written to make it better. soldierx40k 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, we can rewrite it to greatly improve it's quality. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample notability and sources. Colonel Warden 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's notable and verifiable. Yes, it just came out... exactly, so give it some time to develop into a great article. It's been two months since this article was created. iPhone's article looked like this at that time. Let it be edited by more people. Give it the chance to develop. The article may not yet be a "good article", but the product certainly deserves one. нмŵוτнτ 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEEPPP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.113.251 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2007 (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.