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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6080[edit]

Nokia 6080 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article remains sub-stub. because insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make this a useful article; at least, one that's not itself an advert or a review. The previous AfD resulted in "keep" because many users insisted there was no problem securing references for this product, and that it was notable. After five months, the article remains an uncited stub that reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks reliable and independent sources to show that this particular model of phone is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Capsule reviews in websites are not adequate sources even if they were cited. I see no point in creating a stub article about every product offered for sale by Nokia, or every model of product ever offered for sale by every major company in the world, if it is a mere listing of features. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Edison (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N. Copies of press-releases on a product launch are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of Nokia mobile phones Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 25 June 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.