Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reception of the iPad


 * 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   merge. I have redirected the article to the relevant section of the main iPad article where this topic is already covered. Any further content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception of the iPad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I think anyone's initial reaction to this AfD is likely to be "Of course this article merits keeping! It's common sense!" Without reviewing the article and its history, I too would have agreed with this sentiment. But I now believe differently.

This article was created over a year ago, apparently in the belief that there would be such a crush of information regarding public reaction to the iPad, that an article separate from iPad would be necessary. Good reasoning, but the past 13 months have demonstrated otherwise. Here is the status right now: Those are my reasons supporting deletion of this article, but two other editors have advanced two straw men that I wish to address.
 * The significant information in this article is already included at iPad, rendering this article redundant.
 * Over a year after its creation, there are still zero articles linking to this article (with the exception of the "Main article" link created within iPad over a year ago).
 * The title of this article is NOT something that anyone would type in while trying to learn about the public response to the iPad, so no one is going to come here except by first being at the main article, where the information is already included.
 * One editor has pointed out that Notability is not temporary. True, but this has nothing to do with my argument. Yes, the information is notable.  But it is already included, and in fact is included in a place much more likely to help our readers--namely, iPad.
 * Another editor has pointed out that the article's outdated nature is no reason to delete it. I never advanced that argument, rather, that editor him/herself was the one who pointed out that the article had problems with being outdated, and then they mistakenly took my desire to delete the article as a response to the fact that they pointed out that it is outdated.  I never said any such thing.

However, as long as the topic (of being outdated) has been brought up by others, let me point out something about the article that is informative to its ostensible importance. Before I came along here, this article--an article on the reception to the most popular computer in history--had only been edited only 27 times in over a year. I think it's clear that this article is outdated because it is so inconsequential. If it served any purpose at all, editors would be updating it, but they are not.

Deleting this article will not result in the loss of content, it will simply mean reducing the orphan load by one. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Nominator's argument is an advanced form of the "I don't like it, therefore delete" argument with several words added to pad it and make it sound like it's not said argument. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have offered several specific reasons that this article's existence serves no purpose (and, more importantly, that its deletion will cause zero harm). All I am hearing from others is WP:ILIKEIT . HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Besides what the nominator said, there is also "WP is not news." This article is really just a collection of news items.  What people are looking for is an article on the device itself, not what people said about it at the time. BigJim707 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the non-existent essays WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTANEWSAGGREGATOR and WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTMETACRITICFORGADGETS. Reaction to the iPad can be kept in the iPad article. If anyone wants to merge the information and leave this as a redirect, then fine. If not then delete away. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Summarize any unique higher level info into the ipad article. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep iPad article is currently way too long (94,113 chars) and needs splitting. Most of this material would be ok in a shorter main iPad article, but the size of the article means splitting is justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular view on this deletion, but the length of iPad wasn't bought up as an issue when it was made a featured article candidate - additionally the readable prose size of iPad is only 29k characters, well under the 40k characters required for length to be considered long enough to even considered a factor in splitting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – The nominator seems to be suffering from a case of WP:RECENTISM.WP:NOTABILITY is not temporary. The iPad was a product that no one expected, thus an article on its reception. This article is very out-of-date because it includes very little coverage on the iPad 2 and none on the just released third gen iPad. Given the too-large size of the main article, more information needs to be WP:SPLIT from that article to this one to get its size down to a reasonable level. The argument of "It has only had 27 edits in the past year" is not a argument for deletion, because there is no deadline for "finishing" the article. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of replies to the above:
 * The notion that The nominator seems to be suffering from a case of WP:RECENTISM would seem to indicate that someone has not read the very essay they are citing. A desire to keep this article would be a much more "recentist" viewpoint.
 * Let me say to the kind editor that he again is setting up a straw man when he notes the non-temporary nature of notability. I state quite clearly in the nominating post that the Notability of the subject is not being questioned. (It would be helpful if you would limit your refutations to arguments that have actually been advanced, rather than ones that you create just for sport.)
 * The size of the article certainly could be an argument advanced, if this was truly an example of an excessively long article. But I think that neutral editor Eraserhead has shown how this argument is inapplicable in this situation.
 * You are correct in stating that having only 27 edits in a year is not an argument for deletion. I did not intend that comment to be an argument for deletion; if you read carefully I hope you'll see that all I was saying was that this gave some insight into the utility of the article.  But, just to make it clear, I do recognize that the editing history of this (or any) article does not constitute grounds for deletion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The iPad was a product that no one expected, thus an article on its reception. Now this is a specious argument for keeping the article, and to me indicates a failure of logic. Where are the separate "Reception" articles for the Wii, the Camera phone, YouTube, and the Segway, all of which burst onto the market with little to no public anticipation? Most of them do have additional articles split off because they got too large, but none of them have a separate "reception" article despite the fact that they were unexpected. Making the iPad's unexpectedness a part of the foundation of your argument here makes no sense that I can see. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge & Delete The article included within the main iPad article is not as detailed as this one, but the notability of this is an issue. Merge important content into main article and delete. Tonyxc600 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support Tony's position here; indeed, I had thought it was implicit that any material here that was not already included at iPad be moved there. I'm glad Tony has made that clear. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to iPad. The reception of the device is an issue that should be covered, and is covered, in the main article. I agree that there is little information concerning the reception of the iPad2 and iPad3, and having this separate article may actually hinder the development of this section in the main article. The main article is not large enough to require a split, and even if it were, it is far from intuitive to me why the reception section would be the part split out. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge since information is mostly all covered in the main iPad article anyway.  Bramble  claw  x   22:41, 25 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.