Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirPower


 * 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 no consensus. There is no specific consensus for any solution. bd2412 T 02:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

AirPower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't seem to be in any way notable, it's just another charging accessory for Apple products... Appears that it works in the same way as any other wireless charging pad that is already on the market. Seems to fall into the "its an Apple product therefore needs an article" pile... Basically just fails basic notability guidelines IMO. News coverage is nothing more than basic new device coverage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Strong merge to Apple Inc. per nom and WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Wumbolo (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It’s not like the usual charging mat you find at your local store. This one's quite different than the rest in my opinion, deserves an article. These type of articles need to be deleted, this AirPower one is notable. Darius robin (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do you mind providing some reliable sources? Wumbolo (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Qi (standard) which already mentions AirPower. It is WP:TOOSOON for this proposed variation of the charging standard which "won't arrive until sometime in 2018." Ensure there's also a mention in the Apple Inc products section. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable enough for an article because it's a one of it's kind product from apple and different from the rest. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 09:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why it is different from the rest? Sources I can find disagree with that so if you could find some that explain why AirPower is unique or notable that would be great thanks! Saying a product is one of a kind and from Apple doesn't make it true... Generally just means Apple marketing has succeeded :) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Apple isn't just adding Qi wireless charging to its latest iPhones; it's trotting out a charging standard of its own. AirPower is built in partnership with Qi, but can top up multiple devices at once." 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:4DE (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Samsung and others already have wireless chargers that do this, see this Samsung charger. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not like this. The Samsung product that you linked to has two (circular) charging pads built in, it's really two charging mats in one, not a single charging mat where you can charge multiple (at least three) devices simultaneously. You can see the multiple pads more clearly in this IKEA product (i.e. the pluses/crosses). Using the AirPower standard, multiple devices can be charged wirelessly by being placed over one single uniform pad, without worrying about aligning them to a limited amount of static circular pads (and their independent electromagnetic fields). You can place your devices practically anywhere on Apple's charging pad, without worrying about placement or alignment. I don't care about Apple marketing hype, or reality distortion field, AirPower is obviously not you average Qi charging mat (good or bad, I don't know), since its not yet part of the Qi standard (the article states "Apple claims it is working towards incorporating this ability into the Qi-standard"). Watch the Apple keynote if the difference is still unclear to you. If it's WP:TOOSOON, I don't know, or care, but AirPower is something unique (good or bad, I don't know). Once released to the public, AirPower (standard and/or device) is IMHO notable enough to justify an article. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:4DE (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've just made a good case for redirecting or merging, and haven't referred to any Wikipedia policies to support retention. (You don't know/care if it's WP:TOOSOON; you just 'know' it'll be unique and, when released, in your 'opinion' it will be notable.) Not a basis upon which to build an encyclopedia. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and requires WP:N from third party WP:RS - now - and not some time in the future.Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? What you responded to was clearly not an argument for any action (be it deletion, retention, redirect, or merge). Do you see a emphasized word like "Keep" from the user? The user explicitly stated to not "know, or care" about WP:TOOSOON policy. It's instead a response to EoRdE6, and the misrepresentation that AirPower (the device) is just another Qi standard charging mat, like the one from Samsung. Since Apple clearly stated that the AirPower (the technology) isn't, yet, part of the Qi standard, the device is by default "unique" (good or bad, notable or not). What you argue against as "'opinion'", is clearly stated to be just that, a humble opinion at that, and not an argument for a "basis upon which to build an encyclopedia". Is one not allowed to give a humble opinion after clearing up the technical fact that other Qi charing mats require precise alignment of the transmitter and receiver coils (also is limited to one receiver coil per transmitter coil), and that the AirPower standard is shown by Apple in its keynote too remedy this issue. The user obviosly doesn't "'know' it'll be unique" in the future, he/she clearly state that it is unique right now (since AirPower is a new standard/technology, that is not yet part of the Qi standard; name any other Qi compatible charing mat, for three of more devices, where precise coil alignments doesn't matter). 2A03:1B20:1:F410:0:0:0:12DE (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I wasn't trying to turn your comment into a !vote - just observing your response to EoRdE6 seemed to steer one (well, me, I guess) into the view that retention wasn't the most logical of those alternative actions. But your information was certainly appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the "precise coil alignment" issue is a real world issue. Even after successful initial alignment of a single receiver device: "After a month I’m kind of meh about Qi charging. As Snell notes, you have to put it on the pad just so, and it can move off the sweet spot when the phone vibrates from notifications. I’m hoping Apple’s own AirPower pad works better than the Belkin dingus I got to test." DavidHaller (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: AirPort is "just another router from Apple" yet it has its own article. MacBook is "just another laptop from Apple", and yet it's still there. So I'm dismissing such arguments, on their own, as reasons for either delete or merge. Its certainly NOTEable as the wide variety of articles attest, and that's my main metric. Likewise this product has several unique features that are widely covered in those articles, so arguments that it's non-unique fail - the problems in Qi are widely discussed in the press. So what arguments are we left with? Maybe TOOSOON or CRYSTAL, but given the coverage to date I'm perfectly happy with the NOTE levels and detail. Even less coverage was available for things like Light Peak, but that survived. I'm failing to see any cogent argument for delete or merge that survives even the most basic appraisal. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A laptop is different, it is unique and a full product, not an accessory. AirPort is unique, is a product not an accessory and does things that other routers don't. Now do we have an article for the Apple USB charger brick? Or the Apple USB cable? No because they are not unique EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * AirPort is unique, is a product not an accessory and does things that other routers don’t. In the same way AirPower does things other (more normal) charging pads don’t.
 * Yes, we don’t have articles for that USB cable and charger brick, because they are not unique in any way. AirPower is unique. Darius robin (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By that logic should we have an article for the Samsung charging brick? It supports Samsung Adaptive Fast Charging, that is unique. But we don't it's an accessory much like AirPower. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Adaptive Fast Charging is not unique, many companies have made fast charging systems, no just Samsung. And btw, I request you to get rid of whatever is on your sandbox or I’m going to ANI. Darius robin (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly pointed out above, this product has a number of unique features. That EoRdE6 doesn't consider them to be unique is besides the issue, there are plenty of rather RS's that point out these features and even some that make this claim explicitly. That's the bar, and its been met. Unless someone has a ref that says that this is not unique, I'm ready to call for a speedy close here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave it for a regular close please, speedy closes should be kept for situations where the votes are all in one direction. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to stretch this out. If you are suggesting, as your choice of words seems to be, that you are abandoning the nom, please do us admins the favor of saying so so we can get on with this instead of having to revisit it in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a different thing from the Qi wireless charging. Just like how AirPort has its own article, because it does different things from others. Itsquietuptown (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Qi (standard). Well, first of all, I dispute the automatic assumption that this meets WP:GNG. I see a few meh sources - Business Insider and TechCrunch already in the article, this from Alphr also (The Verge is a clearly passing mention). But even if collectively they meet the GNG threshold, all of those are very short on detail; all that can be said at that point is "it will (likely) exist and follow the Qi standard". So, this is essentially a WP:PERMASTUB (for now), which makes redirection (or merging if needed) an attractive option - without prejudice against recreation if further coverage occurs. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MacWorld is very much RS and much more than a passing mention. As to PERMASTUB, the qualifier "for now" indicates that you are missing the entire point of that essay. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak keep per the MacWorld source which I failed to find and (IMO) ensures GNG is met.
 * As for PERMASTUB, yes, I realize it usually applies to articles that will never be improved, and this one will probably be improved as further announcements develop; but WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline. My argument, admittedly poorly formulated, was that this article can for now include very little if any info, no matter how hard we try to edit it, hence a merge/redirect is not out of place even if the subject meets GNG; and even if we know with reasonable certainty that in the future further info will be available, right now we do not have it, so it has no impact on the argument. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is an unreleased product and there is not enough nonspeculative information out there to justify its existence. Yet.  If & when the product is released, then WP:RS can be used to fill out the article's contents.  Right now all we have is a tiny sliver of a marketing material from Apple, and a bunch of journalists being paid by the word to masturbate prognosticate.  What if Apple decides to not do this product after all?  Then what?  Let WP:N and WP:RS be your guides, editors, not your fandom or a desire to be ahead of the curve.   Warren -talk- 03:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Warren above, this product has not been released so it is too soon to make and article out of it. We should wait for it to come out and then this article can be written with better quality sources and materials.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect BEFORE DELETIOn. per TOOSOON. No sense in deleting, as we will soon revert it and make it a proper article when the time comes.L3X1 (distænt write)  01:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.