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 Speedy keep. (Non-admin closure) Nominator did not elaborate on why two clearly irrelevant guidelines were used to support deletion. Par for the course was that the nominator implicitly suggested merging despite this not being the appropriate venue (see: WP:Merger for the correct procedure). No one other than the nominator put forth an argument for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 5c (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New model of a phone with barely any differences. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. W. A. Bulatovic (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably a good faith nomination but a bad nomination. We already discussed this on the talk page. No support to remove or delete this article. JOJ ^Hutton 12:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Reasons for nominations not enough. Article topic received a lot of press coverage, whether there are a lot of differences between old and new models or not it is counted as a major new release and will probably achieve a high number of sales to warrant an article. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I removed the delete notice since it is notable as-is.Frmorrison (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, only admins can close deletion discussions. You are not an admin. Also merge with iPhone 5 as there are not enough differences to justify a new article as it is almost 95% identical. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD notice doesn't get deleted until a full judgement is reached. As it says on the notice. Adrianw9 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't believe this model to be "95%" the same. This article has had over 35,000 views in 2 days. I 2nd Adrianw9's reasons as well. The article could be merged at a later date when the current demand subsides some.Varixai (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand that the 5C isn't much different from the 5, but it should be mentioned Apple have replaced the 5 with the 5C - the 5 has been discountinued so I'd consider them separate models, and I still think the amount of coverage and popularity warrants a separate article at least for the time being. Adrianw9 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong super-speedy keep. Read the opener "New model of a phone with barely any differences. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS" – WTF does that mean? This is just a nomination from a anti-Apple WP spammer, using nom reasons that are invalid from the very outset. These kind of things are getting highly annoying to deal with by regular editors! The product clearly exists, the reasons for nomination are flawed, and regardless of having similar internals, there are a great deal of subtle diffs between them to justify entirely separate pages. Completely ill-conceived nom this, jeez, just close already. Jimthing (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many reliable sources show that this is a highly notable product. Nomination has a distinct flavor of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its notable and is not the same as the iPhone 5 --Jacob Steven Smith (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So that's everyone then, except the proposer. Time to close? Jimthing (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a new product with high notability. cipherswarm (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This has lots of notability, and does not need to be deleted. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 02:55, 13 September 2013 (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.