Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPod shuffle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] IPod shuffle

This is an advertisement. The iPod is notable enough to have its own article. This particular version of the iPod is not. Johntex 19:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I created this article because I happen to think the iPod shuffle is notable, and because the iPod photo also has its own article. I can see your point, but if we delete iPod shuffle, perhaps iPod photo should also be deleted, as it contains no information that's not already on Apple's web site? - Brian Kendig 19:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation. I was not aware of iPod photo. Now that I look at that article, I would say it should also be deleted. I think the same should apply to iPod mini. All 3 of these, including the iPod shuffle are not sufficiently notable on their own to merit an article that is seperate from iPod. Although some might even claim that the iPod itself is simply "another MP3 player", I think most would agree that the iPod broke through a certain barrier to become a sort of cultural phenomenon. I don't see any particular iPod variant or improvement coming close to that. Therefore, I think they should all be covered under one article. Johntex 19:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I lean towards wanting to keep the more specific articles, because they can have a lot more specific info than the more general-purpose iPod article should have; I think putting all the model-specific info into the main article will make the main article even more huge than it already is. (Keep in mind that there's a separate article for just about every line of Mac computers ever made, though admittedly Macs are more different than iPods are.) But let's weigh popular opinion on this. Should iPod mini, iPod photo, and iPod shuffle all be deleted and their contents merged into iPod? Or should the more specific articles stay? Or should some of them stay and others be deleted? (Johntex, would you like to put deletion headers on the mini and photo articles?) - Brian Kendig 19:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, largely for the reasons given by Brian Kendig above. I'm not going to comment on iPod mini and photo (I must admit I haven't looked at those articles yet), but I think shuffle - because it uses a flash drive rather than the hard drive used on most iPods is sufficiently different (from iPods - it'll generate a lot of different views) to merit an article of its own. Scott Wilson 20:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think all three should be deleted. However, I am going to refrain from putting deletion headings on the other two articles at this time. Let's see how this vote goes. If there is clear consensus for deletion on this one, then I will nominate the other two for deletion as well. If not, then I will leave the other two in peace. Johntex 20:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge and Redirect I'm not convinced that the iPod shuffle really deserves it's own page, I think Wikipedia would be better served by merging this with IPod. However, IPod itself should probably be editted down a bit as well. -- Kaszeta 20:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For the same reasons as Uncle G. This article is more specific than iPod, plain and simple. This is no more an advertisement than any of the other three million articles that are on commercial products.--Ctachme 21:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Uncle G. There are many articles on different versions of the same product on Wikipedia already. I don't see anything wrong with that. mpiff 21:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The ipod is a cultural phenomenon, if every Star Trek episode can have an entry so should this new iPod. I think it shows devotion to wikipedia that there is an entry on somthing announced today, already. Well done! Alexp73 21:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For the reasons others have listed above. Also because this iPod uses a different architecture than the others, which are basically all based on the same architecture that was first introduced with the original iPod. AlistairMcMillan 21:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not short of space, and the article is (I think) interesting. True that the info is duplicated on Apple's site, but this may not be the case in a year's time. The iPod article has become an interesting and useful reference to the evolution of the iPod as a product, which is not available on Apple's site. Possibly this will also happen with iPod shuffle? If anything I'd say that the iPod photo article could possibly be merged with the iPod one, but not this, which is a more distinct product. — PMcM 22:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for reasons of interest, logical arguments above, and the plain and simple fact that Wikipedia is not paper. GRider\talk 22:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep. Is notable and does need its own article, is not the same as the original iPod. That's like saying Windows XP shouldn't have its own article. --Randy 22:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Headlines today via Google News include: "Apple Unveils Mac Mini IPod Shuffle" (ABC News), "Update 5: Apple Unveils Mac Mini IPod Shuffle" (Forbes), "Apple aims for new market with 'mini' macs and ipods" (The Independent). Samaritan 00:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! The iPod shuffle is technically distinct from all other iPods to date, as it's the first flash memory-based player in the iPod family. Dale Arnett 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fan-fluff. There's enough notable worth saying that isn't already said on the main page. --Dtcdthingy 01:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, I think this iPod is sufficiently different to warrant it staying for now. Megan1967 04:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already 11,000 Google search results for "IPod shuffle" 1 and 631 Google News articles 2. Definitely enough interest in this article to warrant seperate article. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 13:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rhobite 00:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, deserving of own page. K1Bond007 03:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.