Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS 6


 * 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. The rationale for this discussion appeared to suggest a merge, in which case this nomination was unnecessary. Consensus is that article's content is worth keeping; any merger discussions can continue on the article's talk page.  (non-admin closure)  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

IOS 6

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

None of the other iOS releases have dedicated articles. This could easily be merged back into iOS version history and into each device's article. GSK (talk ● evidence) 17:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to iOS version history as per nom. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to iOS version history. Grillo7 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to iOS version history. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of topics have articles for independent versions. For example, Internet Explorer 9, Windows Phone 8. We even have articles for individual features first available in iOS 5 like Siri. One could merge all 100 Linux distros into one article but that wouldn't make for a very comprehensible article!


 * I know someone is going to point out how little iOS has changed over the past six years. What you may not realize that iOS 6 has 200 new features according to Apple. Some of them may be unapparent; more than the skin deep interface changes Google's Android seems to favor, but are just as important. (for the record, I'm not endorsing iOS over Android) On the contrary, the iPhone 4S has less then a dozen major changes. It still needs an independent article because it has its own distinct history associated with it, selling more than any smartphone in history and rising to account for almost half of Apple's revenue.


 * On iOS 6 is pinned the labors of thousands of man-hours and millions in research and development. For the next four quarters, Apple's mobile OS must stand the barrage of new Android features on the market. Its success or failure will determine whether Apple remains the leader of the pack or becomes the new underdog to Google. It will be the focus of billions in litigation between Apple and its competitors.


 * I need time to expand this article. I'm sure it will be in excellent shape to model other articles on when it is finished. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but articles for the other major versions should be made as well, which I think could easily be possible.Alphius (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created an article for iOS 5, to show that it would be possible to create such articles, and to help get it started. Of course, it could still use some expansion, but I think it's a good start. Alphius (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that this article should remain until the next release of iOS. It is a high traffic page and many users will access it. Meff56 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However, previous iOS version releases did not have their own assigned article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But maybe they should? Ck786 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per above and also the Linux example, all iOS articles should have their own page. What happens when once we get to iOS 15 and we're still trying to keep it on one page? Ridiculous. Ck786 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to iOs version history (or another umbrella article for the more recent iOS versions) as the near-consensus above suggests.
 * "Plenty of topics have articles for independent versions. For example, Internet Explorer 9, Windows Phone 8." Which should be changed IMO, at least for lesser products. While I think that the greater ideas should have their own articles (say, OS X and Windows XP), a mere browser is not notable enough to justify one article per version. And Windows Phone & iOs are even worse. Look at it this way: an OS for a phone? Bell would be turning in his grave fast enough to power New York. Not to mention that it's quite a mediocre phone. One that attracted much attention because it integrated so much into a phone, but hey, every redneck can integrate all their appliances into their van. And it won't make the van a better van... One article per version of a cell phone OS = article perversion. Don't discard any useful info, just don't scatter it around dozens of articles.
 * "What happens when once we get to iOS 15 and we're still trying to keep it on one page? Ridiculous." The most ridiculous thing is to think that Apple will be around that long. Downright appalling. Even Apple followers will by then convert to phones which only have the more useful features but cost ~80% less.
 * OTOH, there could be several articles (just not one per OS version). The latest major revision and everything newer in one article, and the older versions in a history article. Of course, if Apple manage to come up with something truly innovative, that version could deserve an article in its own right. There has been some recent rumor that they are working on a technology to speed up communications, so that the average 3-hour text message exchange can be compressed to a 5-minute communication. They don't have an iTrademark for it yet, but it's more or less what the competition calls a "telephone call"... - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if you don't think that each browser version and so on should have its own article, it seems to me like there is easily enough information to justify these separate articles. As far as I can tell, pretty much every operating system has separate articles for each version, and I don't see why iOS should be any different. There would easily be enough information about each iOS version to justify giving each its own article. Alphius (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, since you're mentioning Windows Phone, I don't see why other major smartphone OS versions couldn't get their own articles as well, so long as information such as their history and reception is included in addition to their features. It seems to me that there isn't really any reason to treat smartphone OS versions any differently than versions of other software. Alphius (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's funny people who vote on AFD purely based upon their own personal opinion rather than anything factual. The debate as to whether it is "mediocre" or not isn't a reason for it to not have an article. The Sega Dreamcast and Nintendo Gamecube were very mediocre (and irrelevant) gaming consoles, but we don't just merge them with their previous iterations... As for the insight that Apple "won't be around in 15-odd years time"... Quick, better tell the Apple execs and shareholders... I'm no apple fanboi (far from it in fact), but to vote against this purely because you obviously have an agenda against Apple/iDevices is both laughable and smacks of ignorance toward editors having a neutral POV when creating/modifying/deleting articles. /rant Ck786 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Quick, better tell the Apple execs and shareholders..." No really, they were a very promising computer manufacturer once, and they're down to cell phones and MP3 players already. Not exclusively but close. What's left is simple extrapolation. :P
 * I don't really have an "agenda" against iDevices either.
 * You brought up the gamecube. It's good to have an article about it, but we don't need an article per GamecubeOS version.
 * About "anything factual": Does it come with an install CD/DVD/floppy? Windows/Linux/MacOS: yes. Windows Phone, iOs, GamecubeOS: no. Does it install on platforms which can run other OSes (for example, some computers)? Windows/Linux/MacOS: yes. Windows Phone, iOs, GamecubeOS: no. Does it feature a command line? Windows/Linux/MacOS: yes. Windows Phone, iOs, GamecubeOS: no. So is iOs really "an OS"?
 * One has to draw the conclusion that iOs is not. Not because it's Apple - MacOS passes with flying colors - but because it's more a "hack that makes a cell phone work" than a true OS. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. "The way we have always done it" really isn't a reason to delete an article. If the nom was suggesting some sort of a reorganization, I would be willing to go along with it. However, this article seems to have a good amount of properly sourced information sufficient to stand on its own, and merging much of this material would be excessive detail for the general iOS article. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Kwertii (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I simply do not belive the nominator gave a good enough rationale for deletion or merger. None of the other iOS releases have dedicated articles, is not a good reason per WP:OTHERSTUFF and he/she gave no policy or guideline rationale for merging the information. Find a better argument.-- JOJ Hutton  22:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep iOS 5 has an article why can't iOS 6 have one? --JetBlast (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That was the first think I looked for when I saw the AfD notice. --Kushal (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, the iOS 5 article did not exist when this discussion was started. --GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just created it a couple of days ago.... Alphius (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a product that undoubtedly meets the GNG by the huge number of sources you can find about it, is unique enough from other versions that there would likely be many paragraphs of distinct sourced information, and is here to stay in our society until its successor comes along in no less than a year. Sebwite (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It has enough info to merit separate article status. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 04:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep many sources for this subject and IOs version history is already a bit confusing. Andries (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article is "significantly substantial" for this stage of it's life cycle, and shows the potential for further development. It is worthy of being an independent article, and not merged back into the general iOS article where it would likely languish.  It meets notability and all other criteria for retention., and therefore should not be deleted.  Senator2029&#8239;•&#8239;talk 07:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above.  Theo polisme  15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per what other fellows wrote above.  // Halibutt 11:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to iOS version history as per original suggestions. Also suggest same for the spurious iOS 5 article that was created above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.105.116 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This O.S. is making tons of news stories because of it's massive failure and this article should definitely stay. Someone from Apple obviously nominated this for deletion.  Sneaky Apple, very sneaky.  LogicalCreator (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I want to state for the record that as the original nominator for this article to be deleted, I do not nor have I ever worked for Apple. It was not nominated for deletion because of its success or failure in the market, nor is its success or failure a valid reason for it to be kept or deleted. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 00:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - to iOS version history as per original suggestion. &#0187;Petiatil (&#0134; talk &#0135; contribs) 01:17, 26 September 2012 (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.