Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 7 Apple Media Event


 * 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   delete. There is consensus for deletion. This makes attribution for two paragraphs or so now merged to Apple media events problematic, but this does not prevent deletion; instead, the two paragraphs can be deleted or rewritten by any editor who considers that this lack of attribution is in fact a problem.  Sandstein  21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

March 7 Apple Media Event

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This corporate product-promotion event, possibly for the third iteration of the iPad, is in itself not notable. The iPad 3 will deserve its own article, the WP:ROUTINE event announcing it deserves a sentence or two at that article, not its own article. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this event will not have lasting WP:EFFECT. If something earth-shaking were to happen at this event, an article can be created at that time, the routine marketing hype leading up to it doesn't make this event meet Wikipedia event notability standards. Note that Wikipedia does not even have a separate article for the FIRST release of the iPad. Zad68 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete- as per nom, if something huge happens on March 7 then it can be kept . Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It should stay for now and if it becomes not notable it can get deleted. Hghyux (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not notable now. Something that's notable wouldn't become not-notable, I don't think you are understanding the Wikipedia notability policy correctly.  Zad68 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. If the Messiah shows up at this event with Steve Jobs in tow and offers everyone immediate access to the afterlife with their purchase of an iPad 3 then we can consider including an article on an individual corporate media event. Unfortunately, I think events of this magnitude are unlikely. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Articles can be created for the product or products announced at the event. There should not be an article for the event itself, which will completely lose its notability the minute it ends. -- GSK (t ● c) 02:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Seriously?  There aren't even articles for individual MacWorld events.  --SubSeven (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is hardly a particularly strong argument for deletion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pot...
 * Keep As it is the event has already attracted large amounts of international press coverage (e.g, ) from the highest profile reliable sources and therefore clearly meets WP:GNG by a huge margin.
 * Given we have articles on typical secondary schools, and plenty of other things which don't attract anywhere near the level of attention that this topic does so I don't see why anyone thinks its appropriate to delete.
 * Additionally having more than a sentence or two in iPad would excessive so I think a new article is needed for this information. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Retracting per bold solution to have a separate article on all Apple media events which is a much more sensible way to handle this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...meet kettle. :) Zad68 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there, and I giggled. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your comparison isn't exactly entirely legitimate. You mentioned one or two articles (MacWorld events), and I mentioned a whole category of articles (secondary schools) - its a bit different really. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You're aware that literally every time Apple announces a media event the press goes absolutely apeshit, right? Are you arguing that we should have articles on every single Apple media event? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's a problem why exactly? Maybe it just means that all Apple events are notable enough to have an article about them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, 100% of those media events stopped being notable the moment the event took place. This is because it wasn't the media event that was notable in the first place, it was the product that was anticipated and then announced. I mean, seriously, what content will this article have in it beyond what's already there? And isn't what's already there basically "On March 7, Apple is launching the iPad 3, and here are all of these things that the world did in response to the imminent iPad 3." Second, WP:NOTNEWS. Third, are we really -- I mean, really? -- arguing that every Apple press event ever now has a reason to exist as a separate article? And yes, point 3 is basically "seriously?" Sorry to be flip. But the fundamental issue here is that the media event itself is basically non-notable, or at least immediately stops being notable once the product the event is about has been launched. You're not going to see people still talking about that awesome March 7 Apple Media Event 7 days after the event, let alone 6 months, or 12 months. Just like, you know, every single Apple Media Event, all those events your argument would seem to support having an article about. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it meet WP:GNG? Yes or no. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's neat, but WP:GNG is not the end-all-be-all in deletion discussions. Read WP:EVENT and WP:NOT, the latter of which is policy, not guideline. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And which exact part of WP:NOT means that this article can't exist? As per WP:NOT it meets point 1, as its not a primary source, point 2, is about WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, both of which this article meets, and certainly everyone here agrees it meets the former. Neither points 3 or 4 are relevant to this article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As the event has already had a massive amount of media coverage so far.-- JOJ Hutton  20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You're aware that literally every time Apple announces a media event the press goes absolutely apeshit, right? Are you arguing that we should have articles on every single Apple media event? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. It's likely just a product announcement and would be relegated to a single sentence on the iPad 3 page. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that its quite a bit more than a single sentence now... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and none of those sentences would likely even show up on the iPad 3 page. A whole subsection on how the financial markets reacted to the imminent iPad 3? And, you know, isn't that related to the iPad 3 and not this media event? The financial markets aren't responding to the fact of a media event, they're responding to the fact of the iPad 3. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the content isn't appropriate for iPad 3 then it needs covering somewhere else. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially per Ginsengbomb. This is a straightforward violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Meeting GNG is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for inclusion. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As per WP:EVENT "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - well it has widespread impact, as its announcing a product that is extremely likely to sell well. Its very widely covered by diverse sources, as can be seen from the sources in iPad for it and the article itself.
 * "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." - well yes, as its going to result in a product being announced that is highly likely to sell tens of millions of items each quarter. "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." - yes its being released worldwide. "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." - yes people are writing news stories about the event itself. "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." - certainly in the tech media the event has been covered for months and I'm sure there will be significant worldwide coverage up to the point where the new iPad goes on sale. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." - well that's pretty obvious. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still confusing the iPad 3 product itself (notable) with the launch-day activities of the product (not notable) (this is if the March 7 launch is indeed even for the iPad 3, still speculation at this point). Here is the test:  The iPad 3 will still sell millions even if the March 7 advertising event never happens.  Zad68 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your conjecture. To take the example from WP:EFFECT you could certainly argue that the Murder of Adam Walsh didn't directly lead to Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and that that would have happened anyway (though had a different name obviously).
 * Additionally given this event clearly meets the WP:GNG I'm not really clear on how you can claim that it isn't notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conjecture, exactly.  So how can you claim that March 7 Apple Media event is a "precedent or catalyst for something else", or has had "significant impact over a wide region", when it hasn't even happened yet?  --SubSeven (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The precedent or catalyst is that it will lead to an Apple product being announced, which will either succeed or fail, either way it will be a highly notable from the worlds most valuable corporation, as will its initial unveiling. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I say above as well, WP:GNG does not guarantee anything, and this is particularly true when it comes to articles about events. That is why we have WP:EVENT to help us sort things out. As for your above interpretation of WP:EVENT, Zad68 has made the salient point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with your Adam Walsh analogy is that this corporate advertising event is not causing the creation, production and distribution of the iPad3 (again we are speculating what the event is about). The event of the Adam Walsh murder set into motion a series of actions that caused the law to happen.  Getting to the heart of the matter, Does the March 7 marketing event meet the Wikipedia standards for notability regarding events?  No, it fails for the reasons outlined by myself and others here. There is no reason at this time to think the event will have any lasting effect. If it does we can create the article at that time.  Zad68 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how you can claim that this doesn't meet WP:EVENT - I've gone through and checked every point, all you guys have done is made a bunch of blind assertions that I'm wrong.
 * I also don't see why it being a "corporate event" is relevant. We all live in a capitalist world right? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." - well yes, as its going to result in a product being announced that is highly likely to sell tens of millions of items each quarter. 
 * Sounds like conjecture.  I'll be impressed if you can illustrate the event as being a catalyst for something when it hasn't even happened yet.   If things happen in the future, as you predict, you will still need to find a source that connects the success of the new iPad directly with this event.
 * "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." - yes its being released worldwide.
 * What's being released worldwide? The event, or the new iPad?   This is still conjecture, not only in regards to what the event will be unveiling, but also in regards to the impact.
 * "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." - certainly in the tech media the event has been covered for months and I'm sure there will be significant worldwide coverage up to the point where the new iPad goes on sale.
 * The event has been covered for one week.  --SubSeven (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to the first point, the example given in the guideline is hardly a massively strong point, the law that the event was a "catalyst" for may have shared a name but the law was passed 25 years after the incident. It sounds to me like the name was essentially chosen as a PR move. The example given in the guideline is far more in line with my interpretation of events than yours. Your idea of what the policy says is more in line with the collapse of Enron leading to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or the collapse of the Berlin Wall leading to the fall of Communism in Europe. But those aren't given as examples.
 * With regards to whether the event will lead to the iPad 3, yeah we don't know, but its an Apple event and Apple products are generally highly notable - even if they fail. We know that something will be announced as otherwise they wouldn't have invited the media.
 * With regards to the event coverage time a week is a pretty long time to cover something in the media. Even an event like the Oscars doesn't really attract that much coverage, the nominations are covered, and then the results, all in all its about the same level of coverage as an Apple event.
 * The whole point of WP:EVENT is to stop things like there being a stub article created about every single match in the premiership - all of which will have content in reliable sources talking about them and so meet the WP:GNG but almost all of those matches will attract little more than a write up of the game. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to iPad 3. An article about an event is not encyclopedic, especially when its just about a press conference. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not really just a press conference. Most press conferences don't get worldwide media coverage about the press invitation. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please describe what lasting effect this event has, as described by reliable secondary sources. Be specific.  Note that you will need to be making a case for a lasting effect felt for an event that has not happened yet, for an unknown product.  Be sure not to confuse the product with the product launch.  Thanks.  Zad68 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets media attention because the iPad 3 is to be released. So iPad 3 is what creates public interest, not the press conference. Its like when a new car is being released, the car maker has a press conference about the car, but you wouldn't see Wikipedia create an article about the press conference and not the product. That would make no sense, as with this article. So either delete, or rename to iPad 3 and make the press conference a subsection. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a new car is released generally there isn't worldwide media interest in the invitation. Additionally the event doesn't generally get live coverage around the internet - which happens for Apple events. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

*Speedy delete - Most of this seems to be a DIRECT copy/paste of my userspace draft which was created several hours before this article and rejected at AfC per WP:NOT. As such it won't survive in mainspace with that copy/paste move and should be speedily deleted as a duplicate page. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Due to recent events I am changing my !vote. See below Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the person who made that decision at WP:AfC hasn't gone and read WP:NOT recently. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that the first revision of the article is almost EXACTLY the same as this revision of my userspace draft. I did not receive any notice of this until this AfD came up on the iPad talk page Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Every time you save a draft, page, or any edit you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.-- JOJ Hutton  23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does CSD A10 exist if that is the case? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I am still rather peeved that proper process was so blatantly ignored and it would be confusing to see the AfC template vanish before the review was conducted. Personally I think we should Nuke it, Salt it to prevent a repeat of these events and then move the article into mainspace once the AfC process has concluded properly. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC) As a histmerge is not possible but as the copyright issues have been address per the comment below I am changing my !vote to Keep. There are plenty of reliable verifiable sources for this event, The speculation is referred to as just that; speculation. As such I see no logical reason to delete it. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparantly CSD A10 does not apply in this case. Guess I'll just have to wait for this article to be deleted here... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Barts1a: I believe the user did that in good faith, and not as intended piracy as you call it. Besides, that is a discussion belonging in user talk pages. Regarding this article, its probably gonna be deleted, as hardly any event gets an article unless its E3 or something unexpected happens. So, either rename, or delete. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Barts1a: I did do it in good faith. Please don't leave | bogus warnings on my talk page about "article piracy" Hghyux (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Haven't seen a crystalball news article like this before.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article of whatever the media event turns out to be, whether that is the iPad 3 or something else. By the time this AfD is scheduled to close, the event will have taken place and interest will have turned from the event to whatever the actual subject of the media event was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Metropolitan90, seems the sensible idea. Pol430  talk to me 09:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete one year (or less) from now no-one will give a damn about this article. The products/services that Apple announce will have their own articles or sections in existing articles. There is no need for an article about the event itself. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which existing article? And with regards to "not giving a damn" that applies to lots and lots of articles we write about events and really lots of articles in general, who gives a damn about Børgen in Norway, population 594. The whole point of Wikipedia is to enable significantly more minor topics to gain coverage - remember WP:NOTPAPER. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete procedurally, as a copyvio of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/March 7 2012 Apple media event. No attribution present in the article to the originator of the work, no link to the original work - a blatant (and so far, unapologetic) violation of CC-BY-SA. This !vote is neutral as far as the article's other merits, and may be considered void if attribution is restored to the article's history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: copyright issues have been addressed through use of the copied template. A history merge is not possible since two separate versions of the article evolved in parallel.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or delete - Honestly, what is there to write in this article? If Apple does end up announcing the iPad 3, the information announced belongs in iPad 3 article, we can possibly list all the media sources that are attending the conference and that's about it, reviews belong in the iPad 3 section, I don't believe anyone would review the conference itself so honestly, what can we possibly add here that's worthwhile for readers that we can't add into the iPad 3 article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is there to write about Børgen, Norway, or all sorts of other topics? Or really the Oscars each year? Not having a massive amount of content is not a really a good reason for deletion, and there are plenty of GA's with only a few paragraphs because that's enough to cover the topic.
 * If people here weren't obsessed about deleting corporate events even when they clearly meet our notability criteria (which is pretty obvious as otherwise why not make an argument about WP:EVENT) we might be able to get somewhere.
 * Maybe we should write a combined article about all Apple's media events together, but one doesn't currently exist. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason there's an article for each year's Oscars is to document the winners of the award, the town of Børgen is on a map and according to Wikipedia's policy, it rightfully deserves an article as long as it's source and consist of something. The 3rd point is actually a pretty good point to consider although the notability of the event itself is questionable. People want to know about the product that's being unveiled at the event not the event itself, people couldn't care less if the iPad or iPhone was to be released without an event. In my opinion, details about the event or the event in general belong in the product being unveiled's article or the Apple article. There are numerous mobile and computer conferences held each year and almost none of them have their own yearly article despite having comprehensive media coverage. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it meeting WP:EVENT is questionable. I've been through every point in the guideline and it meets basically all of them and no-one has really managed to counter that point.
 * With regards to you not caring about Apple events, well that's your prerogative, I don't personally care about Børgen, Norway. That you don't like business is fine and not an issue, but it isn't really a good reason to start deleting articles that may interest other people.
 * With regards to mobile and computer conferences maybe if people weren't quite so obsessed about deleting business articles maybe people would start writing about them more often, if those events get lots of coverage there seems no reason not to have an article on them.
 * Given the vast amount of coverage Apple gets for its product launches I'm sure they will be covered in business courses in the years to come as a good way to do business and get large amounts of attention towards your products. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why technology conference articles are not written is because they are not notable and as a result of not being notable they don't comprise of much content which is impending fate of this article. Press conferences involving billions of dollars are not written because the press conference itself is not the notable, the decision or the content announced during the conference is, the same applies for this event in which the iPad 3 is supposedly being announced hence details about the conference belongs in the "Announcement" section in the iPad 3 article. Apple's business ethics and methods of marketing belongs in an entirely different article, possibly starting in the Apple article and then diverging into it's own article if that is necessary. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to your assertion about notability which part of WP:GNG and/or WP:EVENT does this event (and E3 and CES etc if you want) fail to meet? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article fails to meet the lasting effect criteria, as I was saying before the iPad 3 is notable which as a result makes this event 'notable' hence the details about this event should be included in the iPad 3 article because most if not the entire event will revolve around the iPad 3. I'll reiterate myself: the event itself is not notable, what is being presented, announced, unveiled is notable. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If by that you mean WP:PERSISTENCE - well you cannot know that as the event has only recently occurred. If you mean WP:EFFECT - well the example given there isn't exactly a particularly strong connection - certainly no more so than the effect of this event being the release of an Apple product.
 * Apple events (and the coverage surrounding Apple's product launches) certainly do lead to Apple's insane first day sales figures, which generate more coverage and a lot of momentum for the product.
 * Certainly Apple events in general do get coverage and analysis afterwards as per WP:PERSISTENCE. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apple's sale figures are high because in 2011 which is when the article was written, Apple already had a reputation for their smartphone and tablet products. The same can't really be said for the iPhone 1. Saying this article meets WP:EFFECT is like saying Obama's birth should have its own article as the subsequent result of his birth was that he became president and imposed various new laws. And..analytic? That Slashgear article consist of nothing but Microsoft bigotry and Apple fanboiism. Furthermore, in regards to articles about Steve Jobs charisma, this is covered in his own article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really understand my point with regards to sales figures. Apple's products (e.g. the iPad, iPhone etc. etc.) often sell extraordinarily well in the first few hours/days of their availability - this has happened for years and is down to the enormous hype and interest around their product launches and the fans buying the products initially.
 * With regards to Obama's birth, well that doesn't meet any of the other criteria for WP:EVENT - it didn't exactly get worldwide interest and its highly doubtful that it meets the WP:GNG so its not really directly comparable.
 * With the slash gear article, well I've added quite a few more other examples as well. And with regards to Job's charisma, if it was all down to that there would be no worldwide media interest in this event as Jobs is no longer alive. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you were saying in regards to Apple sales figure, my point is that the iPhone was not as notable when it was first released in 2008 and the initial sales figures reflect that, keep in mind an Apple conference event was held for the iPhone 1 as well. In the following years as the iPhone and the iPad gained recognition so did the media coverage for the event and as the media coverage grew, more people became aware of the release date of the phone hence the reason why Apple devices sell well in the first few days. Time isn't stopping anyone from creating articles, we have articles dating back to prehistorical times, it didn't get worldwide attention because he was just any infant back then but his birth is a 'catalyst' for future events, the Death of John F Kennedy is a clear example of time not being an issue. In regards to your articles, you cited 3 articles and all 3 have been addressed, one of which is a Slashgear article, the two other articles were about Steve Jobs and his charisma, and your point about Steve Jobs being dead doesn't make sense. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No you really don't get my point about sales - this sums it up really quite well. The original iPhone releases opening weekend was at the time the biggest consumer electronics launch ever, and they sold 300k phones in the first 2 days or something. Then the launch of the iPhone 3G overtook that by a factor of three. That hype is entirely built up by Apple's events and the press around them.

Yes overall the iPhone has sold better quarter by quarter as time has gone on, but the launches themselves have always been huge.

You're also missing the point about Obama's birth. Yes his birth was a catalyst for his presidency technically, but the event doesn't meet any of our other criteria for notability, and all the relevant content can be easily included in the Obama article as there is so little to say about it due to the lack of coverage at the time about his birth.

Everyone here has already agreed that not all the content about the media event will be appropriate to include in the iPad 3 article - if that wasn't an issue then there would be no good reason to keep this article as a standalone one.

Additionally if I create an overall "Apple media events" article (which seems like the most sensible way to organise the content so that all of it can be included) I will get an AfD with the same points expressing a strong dislike of Apple and business in general with a pretty weak grasp of the relevant guidelines and policy that has been the case in this discussion.

With regards to complaining about the cited articles, I really don't see what your point is, yes they talk mainly about Jobs as he has done the vast majority of Apple product launches, but the formula that they talk about isn't really Jobs specific and is being continued post Jobs - again it would be inappropriate to include this content in the Steve Jobs article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And given how there is so much coverage about the most recent event its actually pretty hard to find people talking about events afterwards. Even though this article exists I suspect I'd get the same anti-business comments if I was to write an article about the launch of Windows 95. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And you do understand what 'media coverage' is right, they covered the event, not as comprehensively but they covered the event and hence that is one of reason why the phones sold well, you can't credit everything to the media conference, as Apple already had a reputation in the general computer industry, their invitations were accepted by media networks and was subsequently broadcasted. I addressed one of your points and missed the other, obviously if an article was to be written about his birth, the writers won't limit the article to that exact event, it would consist of information about his childhood but obviously we don't create articles based on that so what is stopping us from adding the content about the announcement into the iPad 3 article where it belongs and the add the remaining content into either the Apple article or Steve Jobs/Tim Cooks article? And why on earth would it be inappropriate to post about Job's legacy and his successor in his own article? I'm pretty sure his approach to announcements and charisma has already been mentioned. Also, I hope you do understand why MacWorld is never used a source, they are obviously bias towards Apple hence the name. Also elaborate on this 'anti-business' thing, you're going on about, you've mentioned it several times but no one seems to have a clue what you're on about. ...We can probably argue about this for months, we really need a 3rd party intervention. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And World War I wasn't entirely caused by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke - it is still a significant event that deserves coverage. Of course the success of the product isn't entirely down to Apple's distinctive media events, but neither is anything else ever - you are trying to imply the guideline is much more prescriptive than it would be applied to for any other kind of event.
 * While obviously some content about Apple's numerous media events deserves to be covered in the Steve Jobs, Tim Cook and the Apple Inc articles there is clearly an overriding theme that I really find difficult to understand why there are so many people who wish to avoid covering in their own article.
 * With regards to Obama's childhood it can be easily covered in his biography, but if there wasn't space to cover it appropriately then we would just split the content out into its own article - that's standard practice as per WP:SUMMARY and its what we do in our article on Isaac Newton for example.
 * My anti-business point is based on the fact that WP:EVENT is being taken with a far stricter line than the examples given in the policy itself, and a far stricter line than similarly notable events like the Superbowl and the Oscars which we regularly write articles about without argument - most of the oppose comments here (e.g. saying that its boring and no-one will be interested in a year) can quite easily be applied to those events as well if you wanted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No that's what you're implying by going over the guideline in great lengths, in fact that's what your entire argument is based on - the notability guidelines. But now you're arguing that the article should be kept on the basis of convenience, our goal here isn't to facilitate the location of information for readers. Also, I thought we went over why Superbowl and Oscar articles are created on a yearly basis. YuMaNuMa Contrib 22:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * re: "we really need a 3rd party intervention" - don't worry, we'll get it in about 4 days when this article is removed by an administrator. Vote is now 14 votes to do away with this article (delete, merge or otherwise eliminate this as a stand-alone article) to 3 votes to keep. Zad68 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect the discussion to be closed as per WP:CONSENSUS (a WP:PILLAR) rather than on numbers - Wikipedia doesn't WP:VOTE on things. Given many of the oppose comments here are textbook examples from "arguments to avoid" or "per nom" I would presume that these will be discounted or given significantly less weight by the closing administrator. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As oppose to the many quite laughable reasons to keep? Your probably the only one who has given somewhat valid reasons to keep the article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, citing policy and guidelines like WP:NOT and WP:EVENT isn't listed in arguments to avoid. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Barts1a's reasoning is pretty solid actually. And while a relatively small number of people have made points surrounding WP:EVENT most of them have just blindly asserted it and haven't explained their reasoning at all.
 * Even the better arguments asserting that it fails WP:EVENT with some reasoning aren't really particularly strong - its been pretty easy for me to make comparisons to some of the most famous events of all time (e.g. to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) without refutation. If you guys can't refute that level of comparison then your case is exceedingly weak. That is regardless of how many people you get to agree with you based on the apparently standard practice of never considering any corporate event notable enough for an article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Our arguments are weak, you tripped over yourself in the last argument and basically contradicted yourself. Your Archduke argument is simply invalid because both events warrant an article regardless of external factors. Insult our 'case' as much as you want, this article has a pretty slim chance of being kept, not only have you tripped over yourself as previously stated, you don't have the numbers either. YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My argument with the archduke assassination is that I could legitimately apply your criteria (i.e. this event - or any other Apple product launch - is not the whole cause for the thing it catalyses) to the assassination of the Archduke which catalysed World War I.
 * If that argument was actually invalid to the degree required for this article to be worthy of deletion you'd be able to come up with a logical step-by-step argument that clearly shows it isn't a reasonable argument.
 * If this article was worth deleting I'd be forced to compare this event to a Tuvalu election or something - not one of the ten most influential events in all of history. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is your point, should the article for the Assassination of Archduke of Austria be created or not, I ask because your not making much sense right now, both World War I and the assassination of a leader deserve an article as both events are historically significant. Yes, his death was one of the catalyses for World War I but as a leader of a major country his assassination deserves an article regardless of whether it caused World War I or not. Comparing the deletion of this article to the Tuvalu election would pretty much constitute WP:ALLORNOTHING which is the argument that Barts1a is making near the end of the page of this discussion. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously trying to argue that the assassination of the Archduke isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article in its own right? What articles do you believe meet WP:EVENT?
 * With regards to Tuvalu elections, I'm not making a comparison to that - it just seems like an event that isn't particularly notable but one which has a Wikipedia article (as well as always being featured on WP:ITN). --
 * Did you even read my reply? Arguing any further will be my attempt to beat a dead horse. YuMaNuMa Contrib 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I told you that the sky is blue, would you categorically refute that, too? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are trying to say, can you explain it more clearly? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge This is a press conference. By their very nature press conferences get media coverage, that doesn't make them notable. For instance, every single time Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, gives a briefing it is extensively covered in multiple sources. Each and every briefing therefore passes WP:GNG. Should we have an article on every one of those briefings? Of course not. Nor should we have separate articles on every single new product launch. Yes its Apple and super exciting, but the significance isn't the event itself, but the product being launched. Let's use common sense. AniMate 02:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a textbook WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with the iPad 3 article (or whatever Apple is gonna name it), when the new tablet is unveiled on March 7. Don't delete just yet. — stay ( sic ) ! 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with no redirect It's the product that's notable, not the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I wish we had articles for all of the Apple product media events in the 1980s.  These events announcing products that affect millions and which are covered in countless reliable sources are notable before, during and after they occur.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could arguably have a point regarding one or two of the more watershed announcements in Apple's history. There could conceivably be an article on the event that saw Apple announcing the Macintosh, for example. That has been the subject of enduring, lasting discussion, and the simple fact of the announcement catalyzed a number of other things. But...you cannot possibly say the same thing for the announcements of, say, the Macintosh XL, or the Apple 3Gs...and the same tends to follow for an announcement on the third iteration of the iPad, I should think. And, either way, WP:NOTPAPER is not an argument for inclusion (we "can" include this article, but "should" we?). It actually leads directly to several arguments for deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually cited WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in the original AfD request. I can't understand why Muboshgu would cite it as an argument for keep. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is found at the article What Wikipedia is not, which is policy.  Clearly it can only be cited as an argument for NOT including something. Zad68 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Opps my bad, I confused WP:NOTPAPER with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, nevermind! Zad68 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:NOTPAPER? It directly refers you to policies such as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTAL. WP:EVENT, etc. which are the issues that need to be hammered out.
 * If one could simply cite WP:NOTPAPER as a reason to keep anything, then AFD would be a rather pointless process, no? --SubSeven (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most Wikipedia articles that get deleted are of the order of the average premiership football match. Not something like this where you can make a connection with one of the most notable events of all time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "one of the most notable events of all time"? Talk about hyperbole... how could you possibly say that when reliable secondary sources gave the actual event almost no coverage at all (see below)?  Zad68 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at a tailored list of sources you can show all sorts of things. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to confuse the PRODUCT and the EVENT. Zad68 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note So, The Event is over now. I pulled 3 articles from the big, major news outlets that covered The Event, from CNN, MSNBC, and WSJ.  Here they are, and I have taken note of exactly how much coverage each article gave The Event (and NOT the products):
 * http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/technology/apple-ipad/index.htm
 * About 450 words, ZERO devoted to discussion of the Event
 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46658144#.T1fMk5Uczx4
 * About 800 words, one mention of where the event was (Yerba Buena) and that it was the same location as the previous 2 iPad release events
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577267441821060940.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
 * About 600 words, mentions "Tim Cook took the stage Wednesday in San Francisco ... at an invitation-only event."
 * So really, 3 major news sources, about 1,850 words, and you can only put together maybe one sentence describing "The Event" itself. Does Wikipedia really need a separate, stand-alone article about "The Event?" Zad68 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously you haven't been looking very hard:
 * Arstechnica
 * Engadget
 * CNet
 * Guardian
 * The Mirror
 * CNN
 * Gizmodo.
 * Wall Street Journal
 * Wired
 * etc. etc. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to confuse the PRODUCT and the EVENT. Did you actually read through one of those liveblogs?  What encyclopedia-worthy content that is not simply a description of the new iPad's specs and capabilities (that will be covered at iPad) is in those live-blogs?  Please post it here so we can review it, because I'm not seeing it. Zad68 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we leave it up to the closing administrator. I don't know what you could possibly want to see beyond live coverage of the event.
 * Most coverage about the assassination of the Austrian archduke is going to cover that event's WP:EFFECT. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to start up again, but re: "Most coverage about the assassination of the Austrian archduke is going to cover that event's WP:EFFECT"-- Actually very not true! Have you actually read Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria?  It's a 'good'-class article, go read it! Zad68 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is live coverage of premiership football matches, which you agree aren't all notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. In an article called "March 7 Apple Media Event" I'd like to see reliable secondary source cites of encyclopedia-worthy content regarding the EVENT. There isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Agreed, let's wait for closing Admin input. Zad68 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With this event there has been all the previous coverage, and there is the much wider variety of live coverage from sources than there would be for a typical premiership football match. Additionally the WP:EFFECT i.e. the release of a new product, is far more significant than the result of a single premiership football match. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The horse is well-beaten at this point, neither one of us is making new arguments, wait for Admin close. Zad68 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New arguments below, the discussion should be relisted not closed (no relist needed, new article can get its own new AfD based on new different arguments in case somebody finds them). This topic is not about one single event, the incredible ammount of coverage shows that topic is more encompassing than one particular conference. We do have articles about sport seasons; we should treat this topic in the same way. Diego (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just adding my voice in here for a delete. Are you kidding me? There's no way media events should have articles - Alex Muller  22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nomination. And there are only two articles that link to it, from "iPad", and "iPad 3", it doesn't have notability, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --KDesk (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect Refocus to include all Apple media events and Keep Preserve content per the above comment that "every time Apple announces a media event the press goes absolutely apeshit". This is not routine ore one isolated event, this is a trend. We should have one article covering this Apple style of press conferences; Apple Inc. advertising could be it, but it's centered on conventional advertising. If this refocus is not done, then Merge to Apple Inc. advertising. We have IPod advertising; there should be a similar article containing everything after it starting from the iPhone. Diego (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This case is similar to what happens in console generations (see the article for the eighth generation). The media provides coverage of a product or category for months; this is carefully sourced, edited and trimmed from undue speculation; and then all that verified and notable content is deleted when the final product is released. We should create a class of articles to document the history of media coverage for first class electronic devices, given that this coverage is a notable topic by itself, one that goes beyond the particular individual events covered by NOTNEWS. Diego (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin I've boldly merged this article into Apple media events, following my own advice above in order to unjam the discussion and preserve this content. I think this article history should be kept to respect the authors licensing and attribution history, and this article turned into a redirect, unless that article is also decided to be deleted. (this bit not needed, they can be made independent). Diego (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin The above bit of boldness certainly seems to run contrary to widespread consensus in this discussion (there continue to be only 3 keep votes in here in opposition to a large number of policy-based delete votes), and my personal opinion is that swooping in and doing this on the 7th day of this discussion is less than helpful. Additionally, this is not a terribly plausible redirect, and now I suspect we get to enjoy yet another 7 day highly contentious AFD around Apple media events. Huzzah! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and following up on that, I overspoke in my comment above, having misunderstood Diego's comments. Self-applied WP:TROUT for being overly hasty in a reply. I'm considering nominating the new article for deletion, but that's an entirely separate matter. My comment on this being an implausible redirect ("March 7 Apple Media Event" is a phrase that really only means anything to people in this utterly absurd AFD) stands, most others do not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed my !vote to "Delete and redirect" to show good faith and clarify that I don't really don't endorse this article in its current form. The redirect should be kept for archiving purposes, given that all its content has been reused (the content was valid, but not as a stand-alone notable topic). Given that my bold solution finally didn't involve renaming this article but creating a new one, I didn't felt bound by the unwritten rules to avoid bold edits to discussed articles. Self-trout to myself if this is seen as a problem, I just wanted to help with a creative approach. Diego (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop being so bloody reasonable :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can trout you again if you prefer that. Diego (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? Because Diego has copied text from March 7 Apple Media Event into the new Apple media events we cannot delete it because we have to maintain the original for attributions sake. He's done a complete and very sneaky end run around the whole AfD process. It's absolute crap. AniMate 23:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is going to close by deleting March 7 Apple Media Event as an article, anyway. Do you have some fetish for redlinking or what? ;-) Diego (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: See WP:MAD. CallawayRox (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Not news and newspaper links earlier. Notability of the product does not confer notability on the release date, this is just plain silly.  An article on this sort of thing serves as nothing more than free PR. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See this source, there is notability for the Apple events themselves. Taht's why I boldly reused the content as the license and the 3rd pillar allow. Diego (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing vote to Merge to Apple Media Event. Seems like the best way to handle the content anyway. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory break
Comment - Well... this is interesting... According to the copied template "March 7 Apple Media Event now serves to provide attribution for that content in Apple media events and must not be deleted so long as Apple media events exists.". Do we now have to have another AfD discussion for Apple media events to delete that before restarting this discussion? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you're right. We can't delete this one as long as Apple media events is still here. Really this kind of tactic is unbelievable. Good luck to the closer. AniMate 23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "This kind of tactic" is what the WP:PRESERVE editing policy says we should do, try to fix problems. There was a problem with this article and now there's a clear solution for which I'd say there's rough consensus. So, why would you want to restart this discussion again? Diego (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus to either delete this article or possibly redirect it to the ipad 3 article. You've ignored everything said here, and are claiming consensus for a solution only you and maybe some of the keeps want. Those advocating deletion were pretty adamant that these media events weren't notable, but that the products they were advertising were. You've done an end run around that, and placed your brand new article up for rescue, and it hasn't been nominated for deletion. AniMate 00:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is up to the closing Admin to determine, of course; that is only my opinion. Given that this one article is likely to be deleted (in a soft way) I don't see why you seem so disgruntled. The "media events" article has specific sources establishing the notability of the Apple events in general, so the notability rationale is actually different than the one discussed on this AfD. (The rescue list is not necessarily for articles nominated for deletion, it can be used to request article improvements - in particular with respect to sources). I don't see the problem, given that deletion is but the last alternative to try and this can be still redirected to iPad 3, but if you still think that this article should be redlinked, that can be done by recording the authors of this article in the Apple media events talk page. Diego (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I did react to something said here, the comment by Zad68 that "The horse is well-beaten at this point, neither one of us is making new arguments", by providing a new argument and acting on it's suggested course of action. Diego (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, having not even slightly considered issues about proper attribution with Diego's interesting maneuver before first slamming and then, uh, de-slamming it (and, given the amazing attribution issues which impacted this discussion earlier, I should have), I'm relieved to know that there may be an alternative option that does not unilaterally undo what is, to me at least, very plain consensus to delete (or redirect to iPad 3 -- or whatever it is that they're calling it :) in this discussion, even if that alternative is "not preferred." Whatever the outcome -- and I hope it can reflect consensus and not reflect an outcome compelled by one editor's late and unilateral action -- I hope this gets closed soon. I don't know that I've ever been more excited to remove an AFD from my watchlist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (A redirect to iPad 3 was always a valid possibility). I definitely think there's a problem with how article deletions and licensing interact. In a strict sense, every deleted article for which content has been reused elsewhere at Wikipedia should receive the same treatment than this one, since deleting makes the article's history inaccessible. So to ensure that we follow copyright law, every closing admin should review all Wikipedia to assess that no content in the article is stopped from being properly attributed because of a Delete closing. Not good, but why does nobody usually seem to care, and why is everybody reacting as if it was specific to this discussion? This has always been a problem with perma-deletion. Diego (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that customary? To put an article up for rescue immediately after its creation? --SubSeven (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Generally articles are only put up for rescue if they are being considered for deletion. Only one other currently on the list isn't up for deletion but a speedy tag had been placed. AniMate 05:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The rescue list is one month old, there's nothing customary about it. We're figuring it out on the fly. I suppose there's a good case not to use it again for "merge and delete" AfDs. In this time it has been used to notify merge discussions. Diego (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Attribution can be done in the manner that was used at Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.  This is the sort of underhanded sliminess that gives the ARS and those that share its mentality a bad name in this project.  Until now I had considered the upcoming ARS RfC a colossal waste of time, but perhaps that needs to be reconsidered in the wake of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
 * Yup, that attribution style is what I was suggesting. So you would have preferred that, when I discovered this article through the AfD list, I had waited until the discussion was closed and then asked an admin to restore the content so I could create the new article anyway whith nobody looking? Or that my !vote arguments would have delayed closure for another week, since they were new and required further discussion? Diego (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I realized too late that I shouldn't have enrolled the ARS in this discussion for the purpose I wanted it to help, until after the AfD was closed; I should just have created the new article and wait. Every day you learn something. Diego (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does anyone care about deleting this article over making it a redirect to something else? Making Diego wait to create the more general article is definitely WP:BUREAUCRACY for the sake of it. Additionally not having it as a redirect - as there is a sensible target - seems to be just some sort of deletion point scoring exercise which isn't really appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe you should read all of the arguments -- there are a lot of them -- that people made over the course of the past week why it should be deleted. And, I'm sorry, bringing up WP:BUREAUCRACY to defend someone who just undermined a week's worth of consensus building in an AfD by making it nearly impossible to delete the article because of attribution concerns is...really, really funny. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we just use the alternate attribution option then that nullifies the "nearly impossible" aspect, though. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly contend that my intervention makes it impossible to delete it, or that a technicality could overturn a week of consensus; this article was always amenable to deletion, if you understand it like "getting rid of unwanted articles" and not "hiding wiki content behind a closed door". If someone can reasonably point to a police or guideline that I broke I'll promise to behave with more care in the future with respect to it. I believe in good faith that, if I ever stepped on somebody's toes, it was only by breaking some unwritten rule or custom that is unrelated to the five pillars or the consensual policies defined with the goal of creating an encyclopedia. If you think that "arriving late to a discussion" means that all policy-based behavior should be paralyzed, you can propose a new rule for early closure of stalled debates so that this can't happen again. Meanwhile I will rest assured that nothing in my behavior was essentially wrong-just a bit extreme on bold side, and feel that at some level AGF was somewhat relaxed in some reactions to my intervention. Diego (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tarc: Good. @Diego: it's definitely not my intention to assume bad faith on your part. I assume the opposite, and not just because I'm required to. I assume this because you gave me cookies the other day and they are delicious. I should quit yammering here, anyway; I get rapidly way out of my depth when it starts coming to copyright and attribution concerns. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:25, 9 March 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.