Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhony


 * 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 to delete. Merge is still possible. W.marsh 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhony

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

An application that copies the user interface of iPhone. It is unreleased, and the maker has recieved cease-and-desist orders from Apple Inc., casting the future of the product in doubt. Scepia 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Strong Delete Yeah, but how often do big companies drop stuff like this, usually due to bad publicity? not to mention, would the maker even care? Though I think it should be removed simply because it doesn't seem notable at all. Changing from Weak to Strong after review, see comment below-- febtalk 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Updated: 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This program received major news attention (including television coverage).  Here is a Google News search with at least 25 different news stories about the software.  This rattled a major corporation's cage and resulted in the creation of multiple non-trivial published works from news organizations.  Per WP:CORP (and WP:SOFTWARE (proposed guideline)), this software is notable.  By the way, the software is released (I have it on my phone right now), but was smothered within 12 hours of its release by Apple lawyers making it more difficult but not impossible to find the distribution sources still hosting it.  There are announced plans for a larger resolution version from the creator as well.  Besides which, "future of product" is hardly a criteria within WP:CORP.  Finally, for those that like GHits, here are 788,000 of them.  ju66l3r 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Notable litigation of Apple Computer. The product itself is not notable, but the legal action might be notable. -- Ned Scott 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Notable litigation of Apple Computer. I agree with Ned Scott. The software itself is not notable, except for the attention it is drawing from Apple's legal team. And even then it is only slightly notable, depending on the future of the software/legal action. BJ Nemeth 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone please explain what "slightly notable" means? Or how it's not notable per the criteria?  ju66l3r 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way, so far it's only notable because Apple is taking legal action. If Apple wasn't taking legal action and the article was just about the software itself then ... and that's hardly a major achievement or .. well.. notable. Notability might help to explain the general view on notability. It is a bit of a grey area for some topics, but I think it's rather clear for this piece of software. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not subjective. It meets the criteria.  Apple is taking legal action and multiple, independent sources have decided to make note of the software because of its garnering the attention of Apple.  Notability.  ju66l3r 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what we are saying, that the legal action is notable. We should cover the topic of the legal action, with some note on the software itself for context, but not a whole article. -- Ned Scott 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering it was 12 hours between announcement/release and Apple legal action, it's pretty much impossible to know if the software would have been notable solely in its own right or would have been ignored until Apple tagged it (and no respectable source is going to mention one without the other at this point obviously). That still does not remove the fact that the software is the focus of a number of the articles (titles similar to How to have an iPhone early, etc).  I don't want to fill the AfD with back-n-forth, but I just want to make sure it's clear that the criteria are met for the software per WP:CORP.  I agree the legal action is notable and should be introduced to the appropriate article(s)...which would also help de-orphan the article under discussion, too.  ju66l3r 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I said "slightly notable," I should have used better language. I should have said that it's notability is tenuous. It barely reaches the level of notability in my opinion, and *only* because of the cease-and-desist from Apple. I also suspect that it's notability will quickly fade in the next few months. That's what I meant (in my mind, at least) when I described it as "slightly notable." I'll make an effort to be more clear in the future. BJ Nemeth 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Controversial but notable. | Noticket 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep | Agentbla 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took another look at the software itself, is it actually ANYTHING more than a simple Palm OS launcher screen skin? It doesn't even look like it does anything special as a program, just modifies the way your launcher menu works. In which case, shouldn't we be listing the various make-Windows-XP-look-like-Vista mods? -- febtalk 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "As described it's a "very basic" launcher application" . Scepia 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, it would be odd if Apple had not taken action in something like this, given the name. I can't even see how its controversial. It would be more notable if either the application or the maker's justification had any merit. As it this will not stay in memory very long.DGG 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The most remarkable thing Apple did in the iPhone is the Human-Computer Interface. It is important to track down the impact in other smartphones and PDAs interface. Hgfernantalk 15:19, 26 January 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.