- IPhone 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This is a redirect which was last deleted after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9. The redirect was also salted two days later. But, it should soon be de-salted. And then I am also not happy with iPhone X as the target for iPhone 10, which was last discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#iPhone 10. It's been weeks since the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9. I really cannot live without a redirect. Look at all the redirects under the Category:Redirects from incorrect names. All redirects under that category are names that do not exist. For example, there is a redirect for Windows 9. Now look at the following sources:
Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion of the redirect. The discussion was clear. That said [1], [2], [3], [4] might be enough to have a short article explaining why no phone with the name "iPhone 9" ever existed. The topic meets the GNG and it's not utterly unreasonable to have an article on something that never existed if it can be well sourced. I'd like a "home run" source that has quotes from Apple people that goes over the history of the naming. Right now, the best we've got is www.pocket-lint.com and The Verge neither of which have a ton to say. I'd support unsalting for an article, but I've no idea if the sourcing would be enough to make it past AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, and can I add how weird it is how strongly the nominator has forum-shopped this issue, especially with the statement "I really cannot live without a redirect." If that's going to be your hill to die on, that's a very sad hill. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well see what Rosguill told me on their talk page after the deletion. I exactly followed their advice that they gave me to submit this review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And during the last nomination, Thryduulf, Prahlad balaji, CycloneYoris, and pandakekok9 were the participants who were not in favor of the deletion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, I also support the comment by Thryduulf, which says "To all those !voting delete..." Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestions was to just recreate the redirect, not to bring it to DRV, as there really isn't much to dispute about close itself. I hadn't realized that the title was salted, which does complicate matters. To be honest I agree with Tavix: the amount of energy that you've spent arguing this issue is absurd, and a bit grating because your insistence to not let the matter drop takes up other people's time as well, time that could be better spent on almost anything else. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Since it's been discussed at length and discussion ended clearly, this is easily endorsed. No comment on the forum shopping. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but please unsalt to enable me to write the article that Hobit suggests.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What if we created an article on iPhone naming, and a section can be dedicated to the iPhone 9? That way we can also cover iPhone X vs. iPhone 10, all those iPhone S's, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty good idea. We'll need the redirect from iPhone 9, which is a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objection to that. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that idea. Nice solution. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|