Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertu

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Votes to keep and delete are about even (several votes being discounted). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vertu

In its present form, I would argue that this is non-encyclopaedic. What does "for the rich" mean in this context, anyway? Deb 17:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Found this with a tag and vfd sub-page, but hadn't been added here--procedural. Current content is "Vertu is a company which sells mobile phones for the rich." (up to 20k US$, apparently). No vote. Niteowlneils 04:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Substubs like these should be developed, not deleted. It doesn't appear promotional to me (Vertu is a company owned by Nokia. Products seem to be intended for rich people indeed). 203.177.36.83
Delete. Advertising. Not a company of encyclopedic significance. Products not of encyclopedic significance. Could redirect to Chaucer (obscure joke, inserted for Geogre's benefit). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep if I'm reading this right, a company with almost five MILLION Google hits is up for VfD!? Now I obviously didn't check that each one was relevant to the phone, but just about all on the first few pages seem to be. Even besides that, we have not only an article on, say, Nokia, but many of Nokia's individual phones as well. I see no reason why Nokia upmarket subbrand Vertu shouldn't get one too. Just needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, look at what most of those hits are. It's honestly quite difficult to do a Google test on this one, unless your international language skills are better than mine. Vertu is just "Virtue" in French and maybe other languages, and it's also the name of at least one rock band, etc. etc. Furthermore, there's something very weird. If you do a search on the exact phrase "Vertu Signature", which is the name of one of their products and likely to return only relevant hits (admittedly only in those countries where that IS the name of the product), I get 36,000 hits, but "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 220 already displayed." I frankly don't know what to make of this. If I do a search in Google GROUPS, which website managers don't bother to try to manipulate, for most topics one gets something like 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hits on the Web. Here, "Vertu Signature" gets ONLY 9 hits, "Vertu Ascent" gets ONLY 8 hits. In contrast, if we search on exact phrase "Nokia 6620" in Groups, we get 86 hits. I respect the Google test, but it is sometimes very difficult to apply and this is one of those times. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: not an article, WP != yellow pages. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Major brand from Nokia. Massive waste of money in my view, but definitely notable as a product. --JuntungWu 09:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An obvious and strong keep. GRider\^talk 18:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to say delete. The article says nothing, and we have too much Nokia spam already. -R. fiend 20:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Significant subcompany and brand name of worlds largest mobile phone manufacturer. jni 08:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Notable. —RaD Man (talk) 18:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Mikkalai 07:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 05:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merits no more than a one sentence mention in the article on Nokia. If hyper-expensive cell phones made from luxury materials suddenly become a big status symbol -- then it deserves two sentences in the article on Nokia. --BM 15:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I've just had a drive past their fairly impressive headquarters, and I vote keep purely on the basis of the building: I've often wondered what it contained! Noisy | Talk 17:38, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- You realize, I suppose, that companies often pay to have their sign on an office building of which they may only occupy a few floors. You can't assume that a company "with an impressive office building" actually owns it, or even leases most of it. --BM 17:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, and I learned a few years ago that companies pay trucking companies to put their names and products on trucks... a truck that says Budweiser isn't necessarily full of Budweiser. Shocking, isn't it? What can you believe in? Thank goodness Betty Crocker is real... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. This is a brand new factory-come-offices (less than two years old—I watched them building it); sole occupancy; with serious security fencing on its own site. (The site used to be army barracks in Church Crookham.) It is impressive. I don't have a digital camera to illustrate the article, I'm afraid, but it certainly fits the image of the website. Noisy | Talk 22:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Nokia? It's worth it to say something about it, but I don't think it deserves its own article. TomTheHand 21:01, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. —Mar·ka·ci 18:48, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.