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 keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone (Linksys)[edit]

IPhone (Linksys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A non-notable line of phones that only got an article because it shared the name of the (then-rumored) Apple iPhone. Now that we know the Apple iPhone exists, this Linksys product line is not of importance anymore. Cisco, the maker of the Linksys iPhone, is in the final stages of negotiations to sell the iPhone trademark to Apple Inc. [1] Scepia 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude, your CNN article says they are making negotiations. Negotiations can go either way, and Cisco could possibly end up licensing the iPhone name to Apple for all we know. EricJosepi 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: negotiations fell through and Cisco filed suit against Apple for trademark infringement. [2] 171.71.37.171 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not sure how this isn't notable, but it's verifiable and factual. Wikipedia is better with this article than it would be without. Philwelch 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment There was only an article because of the Apple rumors. If the Apple iPhone never existed, this would never be here, and even though the name is notable, the product is not. Scepia 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems fairly notable; sure, not as notable as the (Apple) iPhone, but that isn't a criteria for inclusion/deletion. Even if Cisco is in the process of selling the trademark, that doesn't necessarily mean the Linksys iPhone will poof out of existence. schi ^talk 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable means written about in nontrivial ways in reliable sources, not important or major. It might not be the massive fame that apple's getting, but this definitely meets the standards for products. I wish I could reach through the internet to shove the actual guidelines in people's face when they abuse the term "non-notable". Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish I could reach through the internet and shove sales figures on you. Yes, they would read - 000,000,000. Scepia 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sales figures don't determine notability. "Linksys iphone" (with quotes) gets 164,000 google hits, including nontrivial reviews of the product itself. "Infogear iphone" turns up 24,100 hits and several reviews. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Zimbabweed 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zunaid©®
• I'd go for delete unless it has sold a huge number, or has notable features that differentiate it from other models of internet phones. As for the earlier Infogear device, is it famous for anything? Internet appliance doesn't list it as a notable example of the type. The history of the trademark might be worth a sentence or two in the Apple iPhone article, but I'm not sure if either of the previous devices themselves are notable. FredOrAlive 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a real product. --Mongol 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mere existence does not warrant inclusion. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zunaid©®
• Keep. People will need to know the difference between the two products anyways when they come here, and this is a real bullshit reason for deletion, which is why everyone's voting Keep.--75.57.25.194 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to new product name pending trademark negotiations. --Nsevs • Talk 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Linksys had the TM long before Apple registered iPhone.org. Linksys had the iPhone FIRST! It is more notable than the iPhone! Cisco Trademark Info (USPTO) EricJosepi 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is notable, when Cisco announces new name, then redirect. --rogerd 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide evidence for your claim of notability? Zunaid©®
• Keep it is a real product and it's not being mistaken for the Apple iPhone. 129.137.149.106 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mere existence does not warrant inclusion. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zunaid©®
• Keep because plenty of lesser-known phones are catalogued on Wiki: Nokia 6131, Samsung SGH-D500, Sony Ericsson J230 etc. If you keep those, you keep this. 203.15.102.65 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:INN. Scepia 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, nor is the Pokemon defense useful in AfD discussions. Zunaid©®
    • For God's sake, can you nerds PLEASE leave comments that are longer than five characters in length? Especially when those five characters are an obscure initialism to some guy's essay on Wikipedia? Philwelch 04:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:INN is an essay, not guideline or policy. 142.35.4.130 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Ben FrantzDale 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zunaid©®
    • I think it should be kept if for no other reason than its name conflict with the Apple iPhone. —Ben FrantzDale 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zunaid©®
• Keep, it does satisfy WP:NOTABILITY --Mhking 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite some evidence for this claim? Zunaid©®
• Keep -- how does it not being made by Apple make it any less notable? Also it will be highly relevant once Apple gets the ever-loving shit sued out of them. --Hosterweis 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apple is finishing a deal with Linksys for the iPhone trademark. Scepia 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an obsolete, unpopular device, but it did exist and is the focus of attention due to the shared name. Dlodge 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 68.198.227.152 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zunaid©®
• Keep. Though it's largely overshadowed by Apple's iPhone, it's still a product that's relatively notable. Ourai ^т _с 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article? Zunaid©®
• Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:Notability and I liked being able to see in WP what this thing is and its history, which helped me to understand the controversy. RVJ 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable product. Looks like a landslide "keep" vote here. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... very much notable. While we are throwing about initialism, I think this qualifies for WP:SNOWBALL. Calwatch 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: beyond its mere existence and description, there is nothing much to be said about this product. The trademark and naming issues are minorand can be covered in one or two lines. I would say merge a short description into an appropriate "list of Linksys products", or otherwise into the main Linksys article itself if such a list does not exist. This info should be preserved somewhere, but is not sufficient to sustain an individual article. Zunaid©® 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: Many of the !votes above provide either:

1. no assertion of why the vote is being made (e.g. just "keep" without any other comment) or
2. provide non-encyclopedic (in a Wikipedia sense) reasoning for the vote (e.g. "is a real product") or
3. provide encyclopedic reasoning (e.g. "notable") but show no evidence to back up these claims

• These !votes should be discounted when determining consensus, which should only be based on the strength of the arguments presented. Zunaid©® 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Zunaid: I think the closing admin knows how to close without you condescendingly dictating his or her job to him or her. cacophony ◄► 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Zunaid and comment on demonstrating notability: I see above that Zunaid has commented several times requesting that notability be demonstrated. Multiple commenters here have done so, and provided sources, but for Zunaid's and others' reference, here is a consolidation:

The notability criteria for products is discussed in the guideline WP:CORP, which says that a product is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". Here are such sources:

• O'Reilly review
• Associated Press article
• Digital Trends review
• Technology Review blog review
• PC Magazine article

While WP:CORP also recommends that information on a company's products should be incorporated in the article on the company itself - in this case, Linksys, as Zunaid suggested. However, WP:CORP also says that "major" products should have their own articles. "The distinction between a 'minor' and a 'major' product is somewhat arbitrary. The main point is that if a lot of information is available on a product, it should be split out, and if little is available, it should be merged into a list." While the Linksys iPhone is undoubtedly not "major" in the overall consumer electronics industry, there is certainly a lot of information available on the product and thus meets the criteria for a separate article. schi ^talk 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both the Infogear iPhone and the Linksys line of iPhones are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The latter, especially, given that it's Cisco's entry into the consumer-level voip market, and its introduction was fairly well-covered. AP story, e.g. Linksys/Cisco is not a minor player -- a lot of their products merit articles on Wikipedia. -/- Warren 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The fact that the Cisco/Linksys iPhone product exists is more than enough reason to have an article on it. Wikipedia is not paper. Iceberg3k 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have liked this article from the first time I noticed it.Hannu 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say that this is a not very good reason - by Wikipedia standards at least. Luke! 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This whole AfD seems like a troll by a mactivist who is trying to remove all evidence of the "iPhone" name being used by somebody other than Apple first. Regardless, the iPhone is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. It meets the notability guidelines, get over it. cacophony ◄► 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Linksys iphone as a product itself already meets the criteria for natability as the Cisco entry into the VOIP market. The additional notoreity with trademark deal with Apple simply adds to the product's notability. -- Whpq 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More notable than the average Pokémon. -Richmeister_talk 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richmeister - Fedayee 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a real product. If name changes, change the article name and note within the article that the product had a previous name. A2Kafir 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly. It's a product and it's out there right now. Just because the article might have been created when Apple's iPhone was rumoured doesn't mean we should delete an article on a real products. It was a silly idea to bring this up for a vote in the first place Smoothy 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, this is anonymous and from a Cisco IP (but I'm not representing Cisco). The controversy over the name makes it encyclopedic, and [3] story states that Cisco is filing suit over trademark infringement. I personally thing iPhone should direct to this page as Cisco owns the trademark. No one seems to have come up with a reason to delete this article.171.71.37.171 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Schi's research. Luke! 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if anything, iPhone should go to IPhone (Linksys), and the Apple "iPhone" article should be changed to iPhone (Apple). Cisco own the copyright to the name, so it seems highly POV for us to "award" it to Apple. They are also suing Apple for copyright infringement, and they remain adamant that they want to protect their brand, so it doesn't sound like they'll be rolling over and letting Apple keep it. Martin 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schi's and Martin's arguments. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The first guy argues that it's an inconsequential product. So bloody what? Wikipedia has tons of other articles about inconsequential products, for example the Commodore_2031 Floppy Disk Drive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.136.98 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep- The page was initially deleted because it was only a rumor, and now it is a real product. The URL's on the "References" heading of the page are enough to prove notability.
• Speedy Keep - Even if they didn't have notability before Apple's iPhone rumors, they gained notability because of it. At this point, the Cisco lawsuit over the name has increased the subject's notability, and that is easily verified. Per WP:SNOW, I'd say this one should be closed by an admin. -- Kesh 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.