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 Redirect to the main iPod Touch Article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Touch (original) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article currently only contains duplicated information from the iPod Touch article and at the moment it's nothing more than a specification list from the back of a manual. Separate articles should be created if the main iPod Touch article becomes overloaded with specific but relevant information pertaining to each generation, however it not even approaching that - at the moment and I doubt it ever will due to the declining popularity of the device. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 28. Snotbot  t • c »  09:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect to the main iPod Touch article, then delete Template:IPod Touch models. Why you didn't do this boldly is beyond me. 12:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that redirecting the article was an option. Well since I already opened up a nomination, I'll let it run its course for another 24 hours, if no one opposes, I'll redirect it back to the main iPod Touch article. Initially provided 24hours as I thought the editor who created the article would object with a reason but it seems that his account has been locked and is inaccessible throughout entire wikimedia network. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can now close this AfD, as you've redirected the article. I'm not surprised he's been locked out, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2012 (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.