Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most sold mobile phone ever

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most sold mobile phone ever

Most sold mobile phone ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though supported by a single reference, this type of assertion in an article title is not encyclopedic, and difficult to support reliably. A mention of this might belong in the main article about the phone itself, but not in a stand-alone article, as it smacks of promotion. Contested PROD, which was removed by the original author without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maybe I'm also thinking about original research. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete such assertion can be mentioned at the phone's article; it doesn't need a stand-alone article—
  t 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Seriously? Maybe even speedy delete. Martylunsford (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I could figure out the proper criteria, I would have. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's not really any good criteria to go by this, as it's completely possible due to the fact that the 1100 is mainly a pre-paid phone that Nokia considers it 'purchased' when they sell it to the provider, not the customer, so it's not really 'sold'. If it can't be sourced, it probably shouldn't have an article.
  chatter) 04:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with list of best-selling mobile phones.   — C M B J   06:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the material is already covered in the article on the phone, and at List of best-selling mobile phones. The phone is notable, and the record is a notable aspect of the phone, but a separate article titled "Most sold mobile phone ever" effectively gives us two articles on the Nokia 1100, instead of just one. A redirect along the lines of CMBJ is not a ridiculous idea, but I find the title to be a rather implausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notable factoid, but already covered in the Nokia 1100 article, in the very first line even. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to information in Nokia 1100. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete - Get this ad the fuck out of here. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as there's a far more encyclopaedic list already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete - Very spammish. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]