Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iPhone applications


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of iPhone applications

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a horribly incomplete and unuseful article that contains out-of-date information. There are over 10,000 applications for the iPhone, and only 28 or so are listed here. If someone wants to find notable applications, they can use this category or Template:iPhone, which makes this list redundant as well. Tavix (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are already thousands of applications for the iPhone and will just grow even larger. The vast majority of them are not notable and will never have articles.  TJ   Spyke   06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unmaintanable, category is better if we want to list ones with articles. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  09:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in line with Neurolysis; such a list would be impossible to maintain. Those who become notable enough to have articles can be listed in Category:iPhone applications or something. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is already taking place. See my external link above for the category. Tavix (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LC items 2, 6, 7, and 11. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:LC is an essay and is not Wikipedia policy. I do not think it should be used as a reason to delete an article. Are there any policies you can cite for why the article should be deleted? ~ Paul T +/C 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IINFO is a policy. Tavix (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not an FAQ, plot summary, lyric database, "statistics", or news report... so how does WP:IINFO apply? I don't understand why you are putting so much effort into deleting content on Wikipedia. Either something doesn't belong and it is obvious or there are doubts.  If there are doubts there shouldn't be any need for a long-drawn out discussion like this.  Just let it lie and stop wasting people's time. ~ Paul T +/C 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If there is a category, there can be a list. Actually, I would say that if there is a category, there always ought to be a list, as an alternative access,with additional information, as long as someone is willing to work on it. This is one of the more distinctive cases where I and the previous commentator differ, but I didn't plan the sequence here. Either view makes sense, but i think mine is more conducive to an encyclopedia intended to be of help to the users, not fit a theoretic minimal norm.-   DGG (talk)
 * Yeah, the problem with your statement is that no one is willing to work on it, and it would be next to impossible to keep it maintained. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be at least one established editor working on it; I notice you as nominator did not notify him of this discussion, which does not seem like a fair way of proceeding. (I just did so). DGG (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I look at it, if an editor really cares about an article enough, they don't need my help to find a discussion on its deletion. Tavix (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's evidence that we do need a rule requiring it, after all. DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When I first came across this article I wasn't sure it made sense to keep it and I almost put it up for AfD myself, but when I saw Category:Lists of software (specifically iPod games, List of Macintosh software, and List of Macintosh games) and how many other lists of software articles there were I couldn't see any good reason why there shouldn't be such an article about iPhone Apps. The scope needs to be defined a little bit more to restrict the list to notable iPhone Apps but there is certainly more information presented in this article than what is conveyed at Category:iPhone OS software.  For one, the Apps originally demoed at WWDC are pointed out and each application's release date, publisher, and genre/category are listed. In addition, is there any reason why a list and a category couldn't/shouldn't coexist? (Oh, and thank you DGG for notifying me of this discussion.) ~ Paul T +/C 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between those articles and the iPhone one is there are hardly any notable iPhone applications, and there are over 10,500 apps. How do we decide which to put in the list? Tavix (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to delete an article. The point is that there are and will be notable iPhone applications and therefore there should be a list of them with the appropriate additional information that cannot be conveyed by a category. ~ Paul T +/C 05:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see that now? No. You can't look into a crystal ball and hope that the article will turn into something special. Right now it is barely a list of 28 apps, half of them aren't even notable, which is in a dire need of an upgrade. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but at its current state, it would require a full rewrite to become even remotely usable. Tavix (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And needing a rewrite is a reason for deleting content? This is ridiculous. ~ Paul T +/C 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG and Psantora. I have an iPhone myself, and, upon looking this on Google, this is definitely worth keeping. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 04:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article does seem fairly weak at the moment, but if there's a real intention to work on it I can certainly see it containing useful, sourceable information beyond what a category provides. A need for a rewrite is not in itself a good reason to delete an article if there's scope to make it encyclopedic, and certainly it's worth allowing some time to determine if that is the case. ~ mazca  t 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - honestly, I'm hesitant to spend more time on this article as the nominator clearly seems ready to re-nominate the article regardless of the rationale and since he doesn't feel the need to notify anyone, the work I put into the article could be deleted at any time. ~ Paul T +/C 15:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Categories and lists are NOT one and the same. While they can be synergistic in some circumstances, clearly every category doesn't need a list article to follow it up.  Stand-alone lists need to live up to the same notability standards as the rest of the articles on Wikipedia, while categories do not.  This subject makes a fine category but as a list it's cruft.  It violates WP:IINFO since, as the article states, there are over 10000 third-party applications available for the iPhone.  If this page were properly maintained, it would be half a mile long!  Since anyone can write an iPhone application and the list's subject matter is too broad for a strict criteria for inclusion, this list is just too vague and unmanageable to be a decent article. Themfromspace (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories and lists are indeed not the same. Lists are almost always more informative. A category may not literally need a list, but it should have one in every case where there is enough material to be worth the bother, anything useful to be added to the bare names, and people to do the work. DGG (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reiterating what I posted earlier: this article is not an FAQ, plot summary, lyric database, "statistics", or news report... so how does WP:IINFO apply? ~ Paul T +/C 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IINFO lists five points but they are just examples of what constitutes indiscriminate information. I would argue that a list of over 10000 items (which is what this list would be if it were successfully expanded under its criteria for inclusion) IS indiscriminate.  Not only does it fall under "statistics", but the wishy-washy criteria for inclusion mean that whatevers on the list at any time doesnt even have to be the most popular applications.  Even (for example) a list of iPhone apps made by apple would be more discriminate than this and I would argue that such a list wouldn't be indiscriminate. Themfromspace (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is limited to those applications that have Wikipedia articles, though I do think that expanding it to include all Apps by notable (IE those that have wikipedia articles) developers (including Apple) might be useful and warranted as well. ~ Paul T +/C 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It is true that categories and lists are two different things. Categories are useful, lists tend to be poorly maintained and filled with crufty garbage. Criteria for inclusion in this one is murky and arbitrary and it will never come anywhere near being complete. The only arguments I really see here besides DGG's are WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, both of which are irrelevant in an AfD. Trusilver  16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * for a list or other navigational device, Usefulness is a major criterion. The purpose of such pages is to be useful within the encyclopedia . DGG (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument that a category is sufficient was refuted at Articles for deletion/List of Macintosh games not too long ago. ~ Paul T +/C 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that argument is just as ignorant now as it was then. Unnecessary and irrelevant lists are the biggest liability Wikipedia has. They are almost universally bad, they require far more maintainence than the average article, and there is no shortage of people who will happily argue for their inclusion and then mysteriously find somewhere else to be when it comes time to actually keep them current. Oh, and I'm sorry Paul, I understand if you are new around here but it takes more to "sufficiently refute" something than for someone, somewhere to use it in an AfD that fails. It requires community consensus. AfD Closing admins to not write Wikipedia policy... God help us if they did.  Trusilver  21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * sufficiently refute? I think you misread me: The argument "a category is sufficient" was refuted. I'm not saying it is the end-all be-all of the discussion, but I do think pointing it out has relevancy here. ~ Paul T +/C 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a starting point for a valid list topic.  I don't have much to add beyond what DGG has said, but as usual he has it right.  The fact that there are so many iPhone applications, with only small portion (but still large absolute number) ever likely to be covered in Wikipedia, is all the more reason why a list is appropriate in addition to categories.  New editors pick up where old ones leave off all the time; the fact that there are few working on it right now is not a legitimate reason to delete.--ragesoss (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are multiple secondary reliable sources which list iPhone applications, suggesting that the topic is indeed notable and verifiable. dissolve  talk  02:56, 6 January 2009 (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.