Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touch ID

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Touch ID

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

Tried boldly redirecting it to Fingerprint recognition citing notability, but got reverted by someone who told me that it had to be taken to AFD if it were about notability (are you kidding me).

This feature on a single device is not yet notable for its own article. It should be discussed only on the iPhone 5s article. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable feature and hardware element that has already received a significant amount of independent (non-Apple) media coverage that has focused exclusively on the Touch ID, thereby fulfilling WP:GNG. See the following articles exclusively on Touch ID:

CaseyPenk (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please read WP:PAGEDECIDE. "Touch ID" is only just a brand name for a fingerprint recognition feature. As it is a hardware feature that is only on a single device, it is better covered in the article for the iPhone 5 itself. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apple's specific implementation (which happens to be known by the trademarked term, "Touch ID," may have a wide-ranging and considerable impact on its own, separate from and in addition to that of the iPhone 5S. See this article in New York Magazine, titled "Will the New iPhone’s ‘Touch ID’ Feature Finally Make Fingerprint Scanning Happen?". CaseyPenk (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just don't think its independently notable from the iPhone 5S yet. Doing it now will make it look like we're giving Apple special treatment here. Those sources would go under pre-release reception. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The NYMag article is talking about Touch ID the feature -- they would write the exact same article if the feature were included on, say, the iPhone 5C. My point is that the Touch ID feature does its own thing; it's independent of the phone on which it exists. Whether you think this should be given a large amount of coverage, reliable sources are covering it extensively - as the large number of articles exclusively focused on Touch ID indicate. That's really a bias, if you will, on the part of the sources. It's pretty much been that way since 2006. Also, just because Gimmicky Samsung Galaxy Feature XYZ doesn't have its own page, doesn't prevent us from creating this article, as long as it's NPOV. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article - "Apple's Touch ID is a big win for BYOD security" also helps establish the subject's independent notability. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems clearly notable from the sources.Bobtheflyingferret (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest to merge with iPhone 5S; has significant information but doesn't seem notable enough to be a standalone article. Perhaps if this is found on more devices, it could become an independent article. 96.48.151.67 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried doing just that right now. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merge. There is too much Touch ID-specific information written in reliable sources (and in the article) to accurately include it in the iPhone 5S article. We would be losing a considerable amount of valuable information by doing so. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into iPhone 5S. Anything that doesn't fit into that can be merged into fingerprint recognition. I agree with the people arguing that it does not have enough independent notability of the iPhone to warrant an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, how do the articles I listed not indicate independent notability? Those articles all cover Touch ID exclusively, rather than cover the iPhone 5s in general. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Again, note that being notable does not always mean it needs to be on its own page. I still assert that for now, it should be covered directly in the iPhone 5S article. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close. This is obviously notable and worthy of its own article and simply redirecting to iPhone 5s won't work because Apple will eventually create more devices with this feature. JOJ ^Hutton 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looking through the sources in the article, they pretty much focus solely on Touch ID, and most sites are notable enough to have their own articles; these aren't just blogs. ~Hue Sat Lum 01:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – At the present time sources show notability on its own, not just from tech related sites but in the wider media. Whether long term this will continue i cant crystal ball but if it proves to not be then merging should remain a possibility in the future.Blethering Scot 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wanted to read about this feature without wading through another whole phone article. More than 5000 page views have happened in the last week, so our readers are loading the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 15 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.