Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPad 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPad_2

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 iPad. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 27 December 2010 (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)

WP:CRYSTAL --Mepolypse (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I knew this article wouldn't go long without being AFD'ed. iPad went to AFD three times and I'm sure this one will live to see many more AFDs. Your definition of chrystalballing is incorrect. Articles on future events are not chrystalballing as long as they don't have original research not published by reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I'll just note that the article contained large amounts of OR at the time I nominated it, which has since largely been removed. --Mepolypse (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:GNG. There is definitely enough press coverage to be notable. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to iPad while there may be press coverage, the original sources are generally obscure Chinese trade publications (in this case Economic News Daily, who are they?) and are basically WP:CRYSTALBALLing. We aren't MacRumors. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've linked to this deletion discussion from Talk:iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to iPad. The article can be created anew if and when the product debuts. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to iPad and protect page. As someone experienced with cleaning up Apple-related CRYSTALs, this is the only way. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with iPad Although it is notable and has sources, as is required by WP:CRYSTAL, it isn't confirmed by Apple for one thing, and we don't really have very much info for a whole article. I think we should put this speculation in the regular iPad article instead, and then restart the iPad 2 article again when the new version is released. --Thekmc (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to iPad I've already tried doing this twice, only for it to be immediately reverted. Jgera5 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because something hasn't occurred yet doesn't mean its automatic crystal balling. Many online sources are chattering about iPad 2. After the second generation iPad is officially announced by Apple, this article will be needed. —Terrence and Phillip 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The iPhone had only a single article for several generations of the product. Depending on what the iPad 2 offers it may be decided to stick with a single page and the issue hasn't been discussed at all on the iPad talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to it than "it hasn't occurred yet". It is a corporate secret. No official information has been given from Apple, and no even remotely reliable data (i.e. leaked prototypes) has surfaced from non-Apple sources. There's no even enough information for WikiLeaks, much less Wikipedia. Just because "many sources" talk about something does not mean the sources are reliable, or have reliable data. The topic, at present, is inherently unverifiable. After announcement, the topic becomes verifiable. The article, as Eraserhead points out, may still be unnecessary. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Condense and merge into iPad. HereToHelp nailed it: the topic, at present, is inherently unverifiable. We don't provide encyclopedic coverage of speculation because you must conduct original research to evaluate the so-called secondary sources. That's why WP:CRYSTALBALL. A future-event article that handles this well is United States presidential election, 2012#Prospective_candidates. It has no speculation on BO, but a paragraph about his eligibility and incumbent candidates. Speculation on Alvin Greene in normally reliable sources merits just a bullet point with his name, title, and state. Speculation doesn't get encyclopedic coverage, even if it's printed in what are normally reliable sources. In the case of iPad 2, the HuffPo citation is reliable secondary coverage of a reliable primary source. That's a good fact to place in a section at iPad. --Pnm (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to iPad Article can be recreated when or if it's necessary, but for now it's crystal ball territory. Steven Walling 07:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to iPad - As the iProduct hasn't been formally announced by Apple, the article falls under WP:SPECULATION. ~NerdyScienceDude 14:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to iPad - As has been said before, Apple's product naming may not be as expected (see iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS etc...) and the article is almost entirely speculative. If and when the next iPad is released, a new article is unlikely to be needed. Wexcan  Talk  02:02, 27 December 2010 (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.