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 delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola C261

[edit]

Non-notable product. Few references beyond trivial reviews and manufacturer literature. Article consists of a list of features and a how to, just like a product marketing brochure. Nominating after contested prod. Mikeblas 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral its a strange one, i mean im not to sure how notability works for mobile phones, there's so many types and i've seen worse article on them --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As above, I think we need to define notability for products such as mobile phones. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but why has this article been chosen for deletion while many more articles on other phones remain which contain roughly the same information, or in some cases even less? This is probably no more or less notable than any other phone, so its a case of either keeping it or defining a set guideline for how you define notability on articles like this so that the whole category can be cleaned up. Tx17777 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'll concede this may fail the notability guidelines as per WP:N, but I still think notability for this type of product is more subjective than many - for example, the phrase "'Motorola C261' review" gets over 100,000 hits, some of which could almost certainly be used to argue notability and 'significant coverage'. But if the consensus here is to delete, it does set a clear precedent for a cleanup of the dozens of similiar articles about non-notable mobile phones. Tx17777 10:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N provides a suitable definition for notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Regarding the sources in the article, Motorola.com is obviously not independent of the subject, and I'm not at all sure about the reliability of mobile-review.com, nor indeed whether a product review at a product review website constitutes evidence of notability. There seem to be no substantial hits in Google News, etc (compare with iPod, for example, which is a product that gets 234,000 Google News hits and 982 Google Books hits). Jakew 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's no need for defining product notability rules; they're already in WP:N. That review, like most reviews, fails the "Significant coverage" part of WP:N. IT's not a story about how the RF circuity is novel or innovative (like you might find in EE Times or EDN), or about the product's beginnings (like you might find in Wired) or about the interface (like you might find in some industrial desgin journal). -- Mikeblas 02:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As said, we should define phone notability. But until then, we go with the blanket notability, which this fails. i ^said 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part-guide and part-advertisement. Not really notable to have an individual article - remove the other less notable Motorola product as well--JForget 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a phone guide, reads like an advert as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article suffered from major vandalism just prior to the AfD nomination. I have now restored the deleted content. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for different markets should be merged. We do not have any articles on Motorola phones that share this hardware platform. If there are they should be merged with this article. -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This isn't a platform; it's a single instance of hardware. -- Mikeblas 11:45, 7 September 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.