Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco 1000

{{ns:0|O}}

:{{la|Cisco 1000}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Cisco 1000}})

I am also nominating the following related pages:

:{{la|Cisco 2500 series}}

:{{la|Cisco 837}}

:{{la|Cisco Valet Routers}}

:{{la|ASR9000}}

Delete all. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge yes, individual permastubs on each model does not make sense. As the biggest player in the field, Cisco product history deserves some coverage somewhere. Irony is that others like Juniper and Avaya seem to have many more articles, for example Juniper M Series. I do see Avaya ERS 8600 is now up for deletion too. I would prefer a narrative article that talks about the evolution of a general product line, perhaps like the "series" articles instead of just a cut-n-paste of the spec sheets. The question is what to call the article and granularity to use. Note for example Cisco Catalyst for the whole product line, but also Cisco Catalyst 1900 and Cisco Catalyst 4500 Series Switches, etc. very inconsistent. If nothing else I can copy these into a sandbox and work on it as time permits. W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into Cisco routers or something. Don't transfer to a sandbox. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Cisco 2500, merge others - the 2500 series is notable in its own right, given its historical market penetration and significance in the field. (Around 1995-96, the 2501 was the default router of choice for small/medium ISPs [http://books.google.ca/books?id=HlZUAAAAMAAJ&q=%22cisco+2501%22+isp&dq=%22cisco+2501%22+isp&hl=en&ei=kLI2Tq-SFO-DsgKomrWaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAQ], selling over a million units [http://books.google.ca/books?id=N3XyAAAAMAAJ&q=cisco+2500+%22units+sold%22+million&dq=cisco+2500+%22units+sold%22+million&hl=en&ei=PrU2Ts6tJeOLsQKt29S4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg] which is a major achievement for an enterprise router). It has no end of discussion in reliable sources [http://books.google.ca/books?id=GRgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%222501+router%22&hl=en&ei=H682ToGbD-mPsQKs-fzqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%222501%20router%22&f=false] [http://books.google.ca/books?id=WBgEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA47&dq=2501%20router&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=2501%20router&f=false] [http://books.google.ca/books?id=gREEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10&dq=2501+router&hl=en&ei=frY2Tt2_F6iwsALFzc3bCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=2501%20router&f=false]. Indeed the 2501 is still the canonical example of a "modern" TCP/IP router for educational purposes [http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ebo6Lgfb3NsC&lpg=PA308&dq=%22cisco%202501%22&pg=PA306#v=onepage&q=%22cisco%202501%22&f=false] [http://books.google.ca/books?id=yBhXoz45rkUC&q=%22cisco+2501%22&dq=%22cisco+2501%22&hl=en&ei=yq42Tp6YCKj-sQKTuLH8Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBTgo] [http://books.google.ca/books?id=zxq78zNHH7YC&lpg=PA17&dq=%222501%20router%22&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=%222501%20router%22&f=false] [http://www.eece.maine.edu/~segee/classes/ece498/project1.htm]. There is even a healthy subculture devoted to finding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx9_xNz1AG8 interesting ways to destroy the damn things] [http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/17450]. None of this is even to mention the dozens of certification and textbooks from multiple publishers for the Cisco networking certifications which discuss the operation of the 2501 in comprehensive detail (to the point where you could pass an exam on it). As far as the others go, I don't believe they are independently notable. Thparkth (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Cisco 2500 series, delete others. Not or insufficiently referenced. The 2500 could be rescued as there are plenty of external sources. The other three are all a tad too promotional and would thus not only need referencing (which I do not doubt would be possible) but a fundamental rewrite. --Pgallert (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Don't mind the merge idea so long as sufficent detail is maintained. Agree that 2500 series should be maintained. Would actually like to see something like Juniper M Series.

:Cisco 1000 - Delete - does not cite any references or sources - tagged 2007

:Cisco 2500 - Tag with Primary source - relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.

:Cisco 837 - Tag with Primary source - relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.

:Cisco Valet Routers - Tag with Primary source - relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.

:ASR9000 - Delete - does not cite any references or sources - tagged 2010

:LES 953 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merge everything into a single article that discusses the history of Cisco routers in general terms (not a product catalog or an exhaustive list of detailed specs). Keep only the sorts of details that are recognized as notable by independent reliable sources. Comparisons with what is already being done with other manufacturers' product lines are not necessarily relevant; see WP:WAX. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all, and then consider merging the ones on individual models. As Cisco has long been the major manufacturer in this field, its major product series are independently notable. A total merge would be like merging all Ford automobiles. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Automobiles and routers cannot be compared in this context. They are quite different products. Besides, if there was a different Wikipedian wikiview a merge of all of the Ford automobiles could be a possibility. At present there does not appear to be a clear community consensus on products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge all - We forget that existence is not notability, and that notability is not inherited. The relevant points of "notable products" can be easily handled in a paragraph or subsection in a larger article. MSJapan (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (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.