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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPad 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Even though the iPad 2 was released in early March the article still doesn't contain significant amounts of unique content that isn't already in iPad or in iPad accessories. Thus while the topic is notable this article seems to be redundant and efforts to improve coverage of the iPad would be better focused elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read before voting: We do not contest that the subject is notable. However, we have been unable to write a suitable article and feel that the content is best merged into other articles, as most of it already is. This position is in line with the final bullet point of WP:GNG. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You will kill participation by spreading information on iPad instead of localizing it at iPad 2. iPad's release in Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia is exactly the kind of information that should go on iPad 2 and not on iPad. Marcus Qwertyus 21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a whine about article quality, not subject notability. Nominator is perfectly at liberty to do something about that, instead of making listings at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's another article which contains all the content of iPad 2 because there doesn't appear to be anything further to write about it, then what is the point in having a second article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To localize information. What I just said. Marcus Qwertyus 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why not go and write the content? If you write a paragraph of content in iPad 2 which isn't present in iPad and wouldn't be suitable to be included there that would be a vast improvement on the current position so therefore if you can get people to write a referenced paragraph of unique content in iPad 2 before the end of the AfD I will withdraw it.
      • The only reason I have made this request is due to the lack of unique content in iPad 2 even several months after its release. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the avoidance of doubt as to the definition of a paragraph, I think the second paragraph in the lead of todays featured article - God Hates Us All is a good example of the minimum content required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Re localization: How is separating the general idea of what an iPad is from the specific details pertaining to the second generation qualify as keeping information local? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This has probably received MORE verifiable, reliable media coverage in one month than the original iPad received in six months! If this isn't enough for an article then this place would be a whole lot smaller! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's true that the the article needs cleaning up, and condensing; but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're concerned that after that condensing there wouldn't be an article left. However, I can't/shouldn't edit the article during these proceedings. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient independent coverage about the iPad 2 itself (not in the context of the original iPad) to warrant a separate article. In fact, it was back in the news today: example. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the claim that the source given gives it its own context. Yes, it says that those are iPad 2s, but are they doing anything the original could not? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... there's the ability to render much more in real-time thanks to better graphics technology, there is the ability to have a unique cover which does not need any form of clip; only magnets, there is the ability to process more data at once thanks to the dual-core processor, there is the ability to shoot photos and HD video as well as make video calls through Apple's FaceTime due to the iPad 2 having 2 cameras and not just one (The original had none), there is the ability to output 720p HD video and 5.1 surround sound from the 40-pin dock (compared to VGA-standard 640x480 and plain stereo for the original), there is more portability thanks to longer battery life in a smaller and lighter device... I could go on about how they managed to sell out the initial shipment in one day for HOURS! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would be awesome then? Someone being bold and adding this content to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Read the article please; most of the information is ALREADY THERE Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also in iPad (except the sales, but that's easy to add). Moreover, a combined article allows these differences to be highlighted between models. This sort of discussion would be great for talk pages because it addresses whether not having a separate article is a good idea, rather than most voters who think that it's required, case closed. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the full list of countries its been launched in in prose is probably excessive even here. And that's basically the only thing that isn't included in iPad at the moment. I actually put a lot of time carefully checking the article to make sure there wasn't sufficient content in it that wasn't best placed elsewhere. I was surprised to find so little. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4. These are articles about the various iPhone models. The only reason iPod Touch has all it's models in one article is because 1. The name did not change every generation (Like the iPad 2 is not officially called iPad) and 2. it cannot function as a phone. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the number of articles is directly related to the amount of content. In this case, there isn't enough content to justify an extra article, so we argue that we shouldn't have one. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to make the jump from iPad to iPad 2 seem like the small step from iPod Touch to iPod Touch second generation wheras it's more like the huge jump between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4. This is why it warrants it's own article and just because you hate Apple and think that their products should all be covered in one sentence (Specifically "Apple's products are overpriced turds"), doesn't mean that you have to force everyone else to do that. And if you don't mean that then you will have to change your tone a bit and be less stubborn because that is certainly the attitude you are conveying now! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Whoa. That was way out of line. (And inaccurate: if I have any bias, it's pro-Apple.) I am not a deletionist but a mergist: I want these products to be covered in detail, but after seeing that the same information can be conveyed in iPad, I opine to remove duplicate content. (Less material is easier to maintain and update and does not leave the reader searching for further information among copies of what s/he has already read.) I base my opinion to merge on the content produced, not the product differences, and as I said in my previous post: there isn't enough content to justify a second article (and we've given it time to incubate, with no growth). To see how much is duplicated, please see Talk:iPad 2/sandbox. If you would like to be constructive, you can help write enough new, valuable, and well-written prose to justify keeping this article. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what; I'm not even going to bother anymore. I'm sure that the cluebat of consensus will straighten you out eventually. In the meantime; I have said all that I wanted to say and this will be my last comment in this thread. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Obviously meets General notability guideline. Steven Walling 03:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and sandbox: I have prepared Talk:iPad 2/sandbox as a demonstration. Almost all the article is present in iPad or other articles. Please consider this when we say that we invoke the final bullet point of GNG, which states that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD and you'll see 41,800 results. This product gets ample coverage, they writing articles about it everywhere. Dream Focus 14:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nomination doesn't say the article isn't notable. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be enough content to write about to justify a separate article. The ipad 2 is covered by the ipad article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the right place for this merge discussion remains on the iPad/iPad2 talk pages. This is, as the nominator notes, quite notable and so deletion isn't called for. Further, looking at the coverage out there, I believe there is plenty of unique information about the iPad2 with which to write a good (if not great) article. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We tried having that discussion there, but we had three editors in a 2/1 split, so we took it to AfD for transparency. And while it would seem there is sufficient information, a closer look shows that almost all of it is duplicated, usually in iPad. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Making an observation, and voting Merge to iPad. Having the iPad 2 on its own entry could be in line with other entries on Apple products on Wikipedia, particularly the iPod where each model line (Classic, mini, Touch) have their own. However, there is one difference between the iPod example and this debate: the iPad 2 is merely a revision of the original iPad, while the iPod entries are for each model line not for each revision. In my personal opinion, the key importance is that the iPad 2 is merely a revision of the original iPad, its not a new line of iPad especially since Apple discontinued the original iPad as soon as it was announced. --KeoniPhoenix (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic the iPhone 4 was just a revision of the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3GS was just a revision of the iPhone 3G and the iPhone 3G was just a revision of the original iPhone. But notice how they are all blue links and the all lead to different articles; that's because, like the iPad 2; this is a pure upgrade and not just a revision. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you before: those articles exist because there is sufficient unique content to sustain them. This article should not exist because there is not. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone is in that grey area between the two but it would not necessarily be detrimental to merge them together the iPhone page. --KeoniPhoenix (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although there may not be a lot of coverage of this now that's entirely distinct from the older model, you can bet there are going to be tons of reviews of the new one. So, merging this to the old one is likely to be useless work given that it's likely to need to be split again in the future. Also, the average reader probably doesn't want to read about the old one if he's interested in the new one, so forcing him to read a longer an more complex article to figure out what's the deal with the new iPad, doesn't seem like a user-friendly approach. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been out for a month and a half. I'm not sure how many more reviews are going to surface at this point. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anandtech preview linked says (on p. 2) "We're still hard at work on our full iPad 2 review." It looks like they finished it two months ago, and it's rather beefy, but not mentioned in this article. So, it seems to me this article could use more content work and less pointless debate about its notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So be bold! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break, someone not doing all the work possible on this article is not a sensible reason to throw away what's been done already. Perfect is the enemy of good, or something like that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HereToHelp; here's an idea: why don't you just do it yourself? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. a) The current content doesn't even meet the standard of being good. b) Expecting someone else to do work to save an article you want to keep is unrealistic. If you want to keep the article do the work yourself - that's how it always works in the real world. c) Reviews can be added to Reception of the iPad which was created to store the large number of reviews for the original iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we merge the reception of the iPad 2 (a clearly unique product) with the reception of the original iPad (A several-times-imitated and copied product) it would make it difficult for readers to tell which is which. The iPad 2 warrants it's own article REGARDLESS of duplicate content due to it's unique nature, design and the VERY unique company behind it! The only reason that the iPod Touch generations are all in one article is because the iPod Touch is not at the front-line of innovation; the iPhone and iPad are and as such each generation introduces new technologies, new hardware and new techniques for making and using what is already there. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't we already have a separate page for proposed merges? As far as I can tell, even the nominator doesn't think that this article title should be a redlink, nor has any reason been given why the article history should be deleted. Thus this should be speedy closed and the nominator advised to use the correct forum. *** Crotalus *** 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That page appears to be for non-controversial requests, and is not well-trafficked (the purpose of this nomination being to draw wider attention). I have asked for clarifications on deleting vs. merging (e.g. do protected redirects count as salting?) but have not heard anything definitive. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, The merge discussion system is broken and entirely redundant to this process. Not even Requests for Comment seem to attract any eyes. Occasionally my merge discussions on AfD are occasionally nullified as out out of process but really the rules are ignorable. Marcus Qwertyus 17:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At least this way you get a wide variety of opinions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, we can all agree on something! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what the nominator is saying, but keep it is enough of a distinct device; duplicate content should be trimmed. jorgenev 20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It will have to be trimmed, because if it was removed entirely, there wouldn't be an article left. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• iPad 2 stuff trimmed from iPad I believe. Marcus Qwertyus 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps partially, but jorgenev was pretty clearly referring to iPad 2. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep more than sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Mo ainm~Talk 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment now some trimming has been done to both iPad and iPad 2, this article looks much more viable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that iPad will be a general article, covering both (all) generations to some extent but also focused on the original, which would not get its own article. iPad 2 would contain information specific to that model and duplicate as little prose as possible. This is my interpretation of this discussion and Eraserhead's recent edits. Is this accurate and acceptable to the other parties? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, but at this point there's no reason not to let the nomination run its course. Shouldn't be too hard for an admin to close :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I never meant it to be in lieu of a formal closing, and it's not your approval I'm worried about getting. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah; I'm happy with this. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:03, 28 May 2011 (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.