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 Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola E770[edit]

Motorola E770 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Because this phone is non-notable, the only cited references are the manufacturer's page and a review which doesn't meet the WP:N guideline for "substantial". The article, without specific footnotes, is just a list of "features" and "complaints" without footnotes from the two provided references (inadequate as they may be). An interesting article on the product would reference books written about the product team and their process, articles about the design of the product in its domain (eg, RF engineering, firmware development, etc), and so on. Were this product notable, such references would be readily available; they're not. Mikeblas 03:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The review mentioned is devoted to covering this particular brand, so I cannot see how that is not "substantial", and if you make a Google check you'll find plenty more. A good article would have more sources yes, but even in the current condition, the article succeeds at providing the important information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator that product reviews are not substantial coverage for the purpose of determining notability. Jakew 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also the article is written in most part like a guide--JForget 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Badly written is no reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problem says not to base an argument on the quality of the current article. I know I'm being a bit of a wikilawyer but it could be improved--Phoenix 15 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia is lacking in coverige of Motorola products. Now we have far more articles on Pokemon characters than Motorola products. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for different markets should be merged. This phone seems to be Motorola's flagship model, and does not share hardware with any other phone with a article. -- Petri Krohn 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pokemon is not relevant to this AfD. This article isn't about a hardware platform; it's about a single consumer product. -- Mikeblas 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep article is badly written yet more sources could be found--Phoenix 15 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of celphones. The article lacks any coverage in independent and reliable sources, so fails [[WP:N]. Edison 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how a list of product specs is a Wikipedia page - Wikipedia is not a directory. Reviews don't show that the item is notable - they just show that they exist. Notability would require articles discussing the buzz about the product in reliable sources - think iPod. Now THAT is a notable product. this is a catalog. MarkBul 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dozens of new cell phone models are made every year, some like Chocolate, RAZR, and iPhone are notable. Others, like this aren't.Mbisanz 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source better, or merge all the stubs into one article. You don't have to be the biggest or the best to be notable. But if there is only a few sentences, merge them into an article on Motorola cellphones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article about Motorola's entire cellphone line. -Toptomcat 16:43, 17 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.