Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPod Touch Fans

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. references seem tangential Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Touch Fans

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable promotional page for website. Minor content could easily merge back into IPod Touch. Ash (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration should also be given to prior deletion of same article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPod_touch_Fans—Ash (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:SOAP. --Tckma (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment adding not a ballot as the previous AfD had. I used to be an active forum user over there, if I know them, a thread will be up about this deletion soon. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and nomination. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete and protect. Great place for information for iPod touch, but has no place on wikipedia. ^TheWeak_Willed 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I made a strong effort to source the claims made in the article. The site has received media coverage just as much as sies like TUAW or MacRumors and the article should be judged based on the strength of the references. I have marked the article as a stub, as it is not yet complete and I don't know enough to write a full article, but surely the amount of work I've put in establishes notability. Bungie bungie (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I just went and read through the previous articles for deletion (sorry, I hadn't realized there was a different article by the same name... didn't even know that was possible!), and it seems it was pretty controversial at the time with a lot of contributing users on both sides of the debate. In reading the discussion there, I must add that I came to feel my article addresses the concerns brough up in that debate Bungie bungie (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The site has set itself up as one of the most popular forums for iPhone and iPod Touch. The site's been established for three years, has a tremendous member base and is still growing. As stated above, it's received as much media coverage as popular tech news sources like TUAW, Engadget or MacRumors. With its history in the jailbreaking community, it's deserved of a place on Wikipedia. Abcmsaj (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (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.