Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First person to own Apple's 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 delete. extransit (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First person to own Apple's Ipad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I declined speedy deletion criteria A7 on this because the article's contents (as well as the title) do in fact make an indication of the subject's the importance/significance. That said, while I congratulate Anthony, WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS seem to apply here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS - specifically "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This person will not be remembered 6 months from now. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one event during which he got lucky. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete classic example of the type of solitary event which doesnt qualify for a WP article. news cycle filler, nothing more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Worst article idea ever. WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously? Delete. WP:NOTNEWS? This is not news either. Looks like I'd better grab my toboggan. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Abundance of caution might deny A7, but only barely, if that. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose, but the article did indeed make a sourced claim of significance, yet a small one at that. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A7 was worth a try. Marcus Qwertyus 16:48, 24 July 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.