Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone availability, sales, and pricing


 * 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. What should be mentioned in the iPhone article is probably already in the history. This split has led to an excessively-detailed quasi-ad, a clear violation of WP:NOT according to consensus below. Xoloz 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

iPhone availability, sales, and pricing

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I really can't see how this highly ephemeral information is encyclopedic in any sense, including "wiki is not paper". It lists the current deals offered by Apple on the iPhone, and quotes a few articles in the tech media that speculate on pricing. If you want to know what The Carphone Warehouse is asking for an 18 month contract, you will probably go to their website -- not to a wikipedia article. I can't tell if this is fanboyism at its finest, or just someone who misunderstands wikipedia trying to be helpful. Sdedeo (tips) 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a catalog. --Dhartung | Talk 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to this point, I've nominated Template:IPhone Data Plan for TFD and removed the template from the article. Paul C/T+ 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog.  Some of this information can be merged into Iphone, but most of this can be considered advertisement or spam info.  Useight 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, more or less an advert. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Not suitable for an encyclopedia ff m  13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. JJL 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was a section in the main iPhone article that was moved to its own article for length reasons. I didn't really think the move was needed in the first place and as a result of the move I think the page has been expanded too much, but much of the information on the page is relevant to an encyclopedia including the sales information (see iPod), country and carrier availability (see iTunes Store), and release information (see Apple Store (retail)). Some areas that merit some expansion in the current article is Apple accounting for iPhone revenue as deferred income over 24 months, which has a large effect on revenue growth and their balance sheet (specifically cash), and Apple's revenue sharing agreements with the cell phone carriers which will significantly add to their profits going forward.  Paul C/T+ 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect back to iPhone per my above comment, unless the section can be greatly expanded with information around deferred revenue and Apple's revenue sharing agreements with the carriers. In which case expand and keep. Paul C/T+ 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - the information on the pricing controversy is certainly notable as is the spectacle of people camping out for days to buy one. A simple list of release dates by country or region is sufficient to cover that information and it can reside in the main iPhone article. Otto4711 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I hesitate to merge with the iPhone article because that article has too much within it already. Some of the information about the initial sale of the phone and the price drop controversy might be worth keeping and merged back into the main iPhone article if trimmed down quite a bit, but there was a good reason this was taken out.  We really don't need to know when the phone was released or will be in each country; it's not notable and even if it's "useful" to some people Wikipedia should not be a sales guide. --  Atama  sama  01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It - Haven't any of you heard of the pricing controversies regarding said iPhone? While I believe more than just a catalogue-style section is necessary, it might be best to merely add to the information already presented in the section instead of completely erasing it.  What other section could that information go in otherwise? -- '''SirTristanCA 2:50 PM PMT, 25 October 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.151.211 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. What encyclopedic information my be available on the pricing controversy in the US can be (if it isn't already) integrated into the iPhone article.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 07:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that information be taken from this article and put into another article, that means merge, not delete. Otto4711 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting this article be deleted, as what encyclopedic content it has can be duly reported upon in another, more applicable article. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to main iPhone article. The gigantic amount of public enthusiasm, interest and hype regarding iPhone availibility and sales are an integral part of the entry on iPhone. If for nothing else, atleast for history sake, this information should be kept. This section might be trimmed for length considerations, but should not be deleted. Abhiag 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with minor Merge into iPhone - Some of the information is relatively useful, regarding the commotion and huge amount of anticipation and hype around the release. On the other hand it doesn't warrant its own page, especially not one listing prices etc from around the world... Nachmore 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this is an essay, but rather as I agree with Paul that this is a legitimate extension of the iPhone article, as the marketing effort has notability in its own right on account of its scale and complexity. This article is neither spam nor Apple fancruft, as there are primary and secondary sources that are reliable, and make a clear case that the availability, sales, and pricing of this new entrant to the global mobile phone market is notable.--Gavin Collins 10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per User:Otto4711's comments. -Mardus 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sales/reception and pricing controversy issues must stay. In addition, the article should be expanded on the other notable topic of Apple's linking the phone with buyers' credit/debit cards and what it means wrt privacy. -Mardus 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is to be expanded at all (which I think it should be), I'm not sure merging back into the main iPhone article is the way to go due to length considerations. Perhaps a more neutral name change to iPhone sales, iPhone marketing, or iPhone availability and sales without having "pricing" explicitly in the name would be more conducive to an article around these issues of privacy and carrier revenue sharing agreements (which I mentioned earlier in the AFD discussion and is the reason behind Apple not allowing users to buy iPhones with cash) in addition to the existing topics of sales, pricing controversy, availability, and the launch reception. Paul C/T+ 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an encyclopedic entry. It's a blend of a catalog and original research. -- Magioladitis 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (or Merge and Redirect to iPhone) - This is relevant, notable, well-researched, fully-documented information about iPhone availability, sales, and pricing. The info was spun off into its own article originally and should be kept.  If an editor wants to take the time to do a good job re-integrating the info into the iPhone article, I am not against that.  iPhone, btw, was just announced invention of the year by Time magazine.  The importance of including information about these topics, even in their own directed articles, cannot be understated.  See Gavin Collins's comment above.  198.88.216.101 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This may be a very good article for a newspaper but not for an Encyclopedia. -- Magioladitis 18:39, 2 November 2007 (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.