October 23

Danger Zone (Miley Cyrus album)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.WJBscribe(talk)10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Danger Zone (Miley Cyrus album) →Miley Cyrus(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete: This isn't an actual record; it appears to have simply been created out of speculation whenBangerz was first buzzed about and untitled.WikiRedactor (talk)23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - misleading to the reader.The Whispering Wind (talk)18:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not mentioned at target or anywhere else.Siuenti (talk)19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All sources I could find state that Miley Cyrus' 2013 album was rumored to be named "Danger Zone", but there is neither any hard evidence that it was ever going to be officially named "Danger Zone", nor any references that link the "Danger Zone" title directly to theBangerz album.Steel1943 (talk)16:40, 26 October 2013 (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.

HotCat

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasretargetIPA for English toInternational Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects andno consensus forHotCat. (The discussion regardingHotCat seemed to not really happen, probably due to most of the discussion centering onIPA for English. IfHotCat needs to be discussed further, feel free to open another RfD for a clearer consensus, preferably not bundled with another redirect so that it can get proper attention for discussion.)(non-admin closure).Steel1943 (talk)04:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• HotCatHotCat →Wikipedia:HotCat(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

• IPA for EnglishIPA for English →Help:IPA for English(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Two redirects from mainspace into Wikipedia space,the only ones I could find. Consensus in the past seems to have been to delete such redirects because they obscure the distinction between mainspace and project space and muck up search results.Cathfolant (talk)21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links toIPA for English from article space. There are still some from talk, archive, etc. space. —kwami (talk)22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cathfolant: - Could you please provide a link to the consensus discussion? I seehundreds of redirects from mainspace into Wikipedia space that use{{R to project namespace}}, a template which contains special logic to categorize redirects from mainspace? Could you please elaborate on how these redirects "obscure the distinction between mainspace and project space and muck up search results"? Thanks for your help!GoingBatty (talk)01:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline on cross-namespace redirects ishere, and says that 'the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might be retained value for extra-Wikipedia links, and that pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc.) may be used freely'. I suppose these few main to Wikipedia redirects that do not begin with MOS: or something (there are actually very few) aren't newly created, which might mean that we should keep them as is. This page also says 'It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule.' as a reason to delete a redirect but doesn't make clear if redirects such asHotCat, which don't begin with anything like a prefix, should be kept or not.

From what I've read, the rationale for deleting these cross namespace redirects is that it's important for users to learn the distinction between the various namespaces and that such redirects obscure them, and that if someone searches for a search term that is matched by a main to Wikipedia redirect they will get search results in Wikipedia space when, possibly, they were actually looking for something in mainspace. This is not really my opinion though.Cathfolant (talk)22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just retargeted IPA for English to an actual article on that exact topic,International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. That leaves Hotcat.Ego White Tray (talk)03:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been undone so we need to do this formally.The Whispering Wind (talk)15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing some references to Hot Cat or Hotcat reactor as a synonym forEnergy Catalyzer, a fake cold fusion device. Not sure if that's a good target, though.Ego White Tray (talk)03:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RetargetIPA for English toInternational Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects as a useful redirect.The Whispering Wind (talk)15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RetargetIPA for English toInternational Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects as plausible synonym.Siuenti (talk)19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those both sound ok.Cathfolant (talk)22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting is fine once the existing links are fixed. I did the ones in mainspace, but many of the archived and talk links refer specifically to the IPA key now in help space. The intended link should be maintained if we're not to corrupt what others intended to say. —kwami (talk)05:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right.Cathfolant (talk)14:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why maybe these should just stay as is, because they're old redirects and linked from talk pages and things and changing or deleting them would break links, even if we did change all the ones in non-talk spaces. I think I didn't really know what I was doing when I nominated them for discussion; but we shall see how this turns out, I suppose.Cathfolant (talk)14:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepHotCat. Well established so deletion would break external and some internal links. Though CNRs are undesirable, the harm would depend on whether the term is one that the general reader is likely to use for other purposes and, failing a good retarget, then 'keep' is the least harmful action.The Whispering Wind (talk)22:25, 25 October 2013 (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.

Ignorance is Strengh

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep(non-admin closure).Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignorance is StrenghIgnorance is Strengh →Nineteen Eighty-Four(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused, unlinked redirect containing implausible typo. Is obvious case forWP:CSD#R3 except that it hasn't been created recently (made in 2004). The non-typo redirectIgnorance is Strength already exists making this redirect unnecessary.Jason Quinn (talk)20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget todoublespeak The spelling error is plausible enough to keep, but both this and the correct spelling should target the more relevant article, which is doublespeak.Ego White Tray (talk)03:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have tagged{{R from misspelling}}. Harmless, no grounds inWP:RFD#DELETE to delete. Present target is best because the phrase is directly mentioned there.The Whispering Wind (talk)14:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - exceedingly plausible typo.WilyD09:58, 28 October 2013 (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.

Chinatown, Tehran

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasretarget toChinatowns in the Middle East#Tehran(non-admin closure).Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinatown, TehranChinatown, Tehran →Mahale Chiniha(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Mahale Chiniha is in Dogonbadan, not Teheran. Seems like an incorrect redirect.Slashme (talk)12:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toChinatowns in the Middle East#Tehran as a helpful target.The Whispering Wind (talk)14:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toChinatowns in the Middle East#Tehran per theThe Whispering Wind.--Lenticel^(talk)05:47, 25 October 2013 (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.

The Scrapbook EP (John Galea album)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep(non-admin closure).Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Scrapbook EP (John Galea album) →The Scrapbook EP (John Galea EP)(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unnecessary, orphaned redirectBoleyn (talk)08:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – it's an incorrect naming of the article (I have moved it to the right one). –Mayast (talk)08:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - To most of us, an EP is simply a different kind of album. The vast majority of our readers don't really make such a distinction. Unless there is both an album and EP and they aren't the same, there is no reason to delete.Ego White Tray (talk)03:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - harmless and, as Ego White Tray says, unless there is a separate album with this name, not confusing. No reason to delete.The Whispering Wind (talk)15:23, 24 October 2013 (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.

@ladygaga

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waswithdrawn by nominator.Steel1943 (talk)16:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @ladygaga@ladygaga →Lady Gaga(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This is the officialTwitter username of the target's subject. However, I cannot find a reference to a Wikipedia policy that states that this redirect should not exist. For example,WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK states that Wikipedia is not a social networking site to host personal pages, but it does not specifically state that usernames on social networking sites cannot be used as redirects towards their targets. My belief is that this redirect should bedeleted; however, if it is not, we might as well create the template{{R from Twitter username}} and the categoryCategory:Redirects from Twitter usernames.Steel1943 (talk)07:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There used to be an article calledLady Gaga on Twitter. There was a consensus to delete these sort of articles, but someone could still be looking for information on the twitter feed. This is the next best thing.71.58.108.187 (talk)13:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. IP editor, I did see thatLady Gaga on Twitter is a redirect toLady Gaga and that the redirect used to be an article. Also, I did see that@ladygaga@ladygaga was created beforethe AFD for Lady Gaga on Twitter completed. However, there is not a lot of information that was merged into theLady Gaga article that I am seeing that is related to the subject's Twitter feed; it seems that most of that material was removed (as I am only seeing one reference to Twitter anywhere on the article). So, I'm not seeing the full purpose for@ladygaga@ladygaga existing ... but if it has to be there, I believe that it has to be thrown into a category for other Wikipedians.(There's my two cents as I really have nothing additional to add; time for consensus to do its work!)Steel1943 (talk)04:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems a perfectly useful redirect.The Whispering Wind (talk)15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did you mean that you can't find a policy that states that this redirect should exist (as opposed to should not exist)?Cathfolant (talk)14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure. I would think that a redirect with a title like this would not exist per the guidelines atWP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK since this redirect's title is directly linked to a social network, but the guideline says nothing in regards to redirects. That, and I could not find any other guidelines in regards to this specific scenario. (My issue here could be that theWP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK guideline needs updating, but right now,@ladygaga@ladygaga seems to be the only Twitter username redirect in existence on Wikipedia.)Steel1943 (talk)15:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few others to be found atSpecial:PrefixIndex/@, such as@BarackObama,@Mujtahidd,@stephenfry,@Pontifex and I have now restored@justinbieber too. They all have >1M followers, which I think is 'enough' to indicate that their twitter handle is a valid search term. They are getting page views; seehttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/@stephenfryJohn Vandenberg^(chat)15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination . I'm not sure why I didn't checkSpecial:PrefixIndex/@ before starting this discussion. I might start the categories later; looks like creating redirects such as this one is common practice.Steel1943 (talk)16:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible search term, no apparent argument for deletion.WilyD09:59, 28 October 2013 (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.

Stupid pointless annoying messages

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waswithdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (talk)00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stupid pointless annoying messagesStupid pointless annoying messages →Spam (electronic)(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Obscure search termMarcus Qwertyus (talk)03:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - obscure but leads to a relevant target. Entirely harmless and no grounds ofWP:RFD#Delete are met. Its a long-standing title so deletion will break a bunch of external links.The Whispering Wind (talk)03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure which way this should go, but the title seems kind of like an expression of someone's frustration at receiving spam messages.Cathfolant (talk)22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, it's irrelevant.Cathfolant (talk)14:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's mentioned in the target article.Taylor Trescott -^{my talk} +_{my edits}00:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also tagged with{{citation needed}}. If it doesn't end up being sourced it may not be a notable enough term to merit a redirect.Cathfolant (talk)14:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems that contributors keep forgetting that it is an article'ssubject that must be notable. Redirects arenot articles; some are potential articles, but even those are not required to be "notable", yet. "Spam" was used onUseNet from the beginning and, though it meant something different back then, it still denoted messages that were annoying, pointless and stupid. Originally, the only thing to which the term "spam" alluded was the delicious, meaty treat found in stores everywhere (bit of irony). There have been various idiomatic words attributed to "S.P.A.M." as an acronym, and this redirect reflects one of those. We could build several more if you like.;>) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!16:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination - It's an acronym. Thanks for pointing that out.Marcus Qwertyus (talk)21:14, 27 October 2013 (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.

Why wikipedia is stupid

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (talk)03:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wikipedia is stupid →Criticism of Wikipedia(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Abusive while the target article doesn't explain why Wikipedia "lacks intelligence" per se.Marcus Qwertyus (talk)03:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, yeah, well, sure. We wouldn't expect an essay on lack of intelligence from that title anyway. I saydelete since it's pretty useless considering the page hits, and I suppose someone could call it "abusive". But ah well, there's bigger fish to fry.Drmies (talk)03:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - why delete? No grounds ofWP:RFD#Delete are met. It gets some hits so some readers find it a plausible search term and it leads to a relevant target. Redirects simply provide a tool for readers and are value-free -WP:RFD#NEUTRAL is relevant. Its a long-standing title so deletion will break a bunch of external links. As the above comment says "there's bigger fish to fry" - lets get over it and move on ....The Whispering Wind (talk)03:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope the "it-gets-hits" argument doesn't get used too much around here. It kind of reminds me of the "it-gets-7,930-search-results-in-Googleargument that gets thrown around atWP:RM. Has it occurred to you that a lot (in this case, most) of those "hits" are justWeb crawlers?Marcus Qwertyus (talk)04:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not very NPOV. Might as well haveWikipedia is the worst too - more the sort of thing that belongs on Uncyclopedia.Cathfolant (talk)22:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV actually is not relevant to redirects and is certainly not a valid ground for deletion - seeWP:RFD#NEUTRAL. Redirects are solely search aids and someone who wishes to find an article on 'Criticism of Wikipedia' and who doesn't know our naming conventions may well try such a term.The Whispering Wind (talk)23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - butPan-Turkism And forging in history, which seems slightly similar to this, was originally nominated for deletion as being a 'hopeless case of POV'. Is that not a valid argument then?Cathfolant (talk)23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was originally arant against wikipedia but then was turned into a redirect after being tagged for speedy deletion. So, yes, it's abusive as the nom said, and maybe it should just have been speedied. Though that may not really be relevant to whether the redirect should be kept.Cathfolant (talk)23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is pivotal is whether there is a use for the title as a search aid. Or to put it another way, if someone clicks on the link will they find anything relevant? In this case I note that the target 'Criticism of Wikipedia' includes: "Jaron Lanier describes Wikipedia as a "hive mind" that is "for the most part stupid and boring", and asks, rhetorically, "why pay attention to it?"" followed by a long quote. So, yes, it does seem relevant.

The validity of the Pan-Turkism redirect should have depended on whether there was relevant content at the target not whether it was POV. As the guideline states "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion.".The Whispering Wind (talk)

Maybe.Cathfolant (talk)01:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on that actually. I suppose that quote could be interpreted as covering the title/topic of the redirect in the article, but it doesn't really sound to me like the article covers in any depth 'why wikipedia is stupid', and if it did try to explain any more why wikipedia was stupid it would be probably expressing an unsourced point of view. So maybe the content isn't relevant enough. I see your point but I'm just not sure the article covers that bit enough to be useful in this way.Cathfolant (talk)01:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The target doesn't explain why Wikipedia is stupid, and this phrase is not neutral. Even if it does get hits, it does more harm than good to keep this foolish redirect. The "external links" argument is stupid and should be changed - if we really gave two shits about external links, nothing could ever be deleted.Taylor Trescott -^{my talk} +_{my edits}00:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Actually, if the article explained why Wikipedia was stupid, it would probably have a bad case oforiginal research.Cathfolant (talk)01:22, 25 October 2013 (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.

IPhone HD

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.WJBscribe(talk)10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone HD →IPhone(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

As below. The target article will need to provide some kind of critical context.Marcus Qwertyus (talk)03:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing there of relevance so this will only lead to disappointment for the searcher.The Whispering Wind (talk)03:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perWP:CRYSTALBALL.Steel1943 (talk)17:58, 23 October 2013 (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.

IPhone M

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.WJBscribe(talk)10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone M →IPhone(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The target article will need to provide some kind of critical context.Marcus Qwertyus (talk)03:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing there of relevance so this will only lead to disappointment for the searcher.The Whispering Wind (talk)03:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perWP:CRYSTALBALL.Steel1943 (talk)18:00, 23 October 2013 (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.

Approval rating

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasretarget to Opinion poll(non-admin closure).Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)01:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Approval ratingApproval rating →United States presidential approval rating(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Proposingdeletion, unless a better target can be found. Approval ratings are a broad concept, and this term should not redirect to the article on the approval ratings for one person in one country. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}02:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toOpinion poll. I have much empathy with the nominator. The problem with deletion of a title that's been around for nearly 6 years is that its likely to bust many external links. My suggested retarget is, I think, a sensible target that will not surprise searchers.The Whispering Wind (talk)02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Whispering Wind's suggestion sounds useful to me.Drmies (talk)03:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toOpinion poll perThe Whispering Wind. I can't find a good reference to add "approval rating" to the target article but I guess this would do.--Lenticel^(talk)05:54, 25 October 2013 (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.

IPhone 6S

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.WJBscribe(talk)00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone 6SIPhone 6S →IPhone(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Same asWP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 22#IPhone 6C. Per theprinciple of least astonishment. TheiPhone article doesn't talk about the supposed next generation of devices.Marcus Qwertyus (talk)00:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing there of relevance so this will only lead to disappointment for the searcher.The Whispering Wind (talk)02:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perWP:CRYSTALBALL.Steel1943 (talk)17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article provides no information on said product.Zach Vega (talk to me)18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perWP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel^(talk)05:49, 25 October 2013 (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.