Talk:Reception of the iPad

This article has been redirected, please make any new comments at Talk:iPad.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Neutral reactions? "Media reaction to Apple Inc.'s iPad has generally been neutral or positive, with more positive reaction after the device was launched." How can a reaction be neutral? It's either negative or positive. Seems redundant to me. 7sagan (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Very outdated article This article is very outdated. It includes very little coverage on the release of the iPad 2 and no coverage at all of the 3rd generation iPad. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Very unnecessary article Pretty much anything meriting survival in this article is already in the main articles on the devices. This was a news article, not an encyclopedia article. The reason it's so out of date is because it serves no purpose, and no one ever comes here, except probably from the "Main article" link within the actual main article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Blanking the article is not acceptable; If you don't want to bring it up to date, then don't. WP:NOTABILITY is not temporary. I placed the {{outdated}} tag after the introduction of the 3rd generation iPad, because it needs to be updated to provide a neutral point of view based on new models. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC) First of all, Acps, thank you for finally coming here and responding. Now I'd like to clarify my thoughts a bit: It's not about not wanting to bring it up to date. It's because this article serves no purpose. To wit: This material is already covered at iPad The only article that links to here is iPad, so no one is coming here Nobody--I repeat, nobody--is going to come to Wikipedia and type in Reception of the iPad. They're going to go to iPad, and this information is already in there. Look, I'm sure this article appeared to serve a purpose at one time. Maybe it did serve a purpose. That is no longer the case. If you want to go AfD on this, fine, but it'll either end up being turned into a redirect or, more likely, be deleted altogether. I'll go that route if you want, but I'll resent the waste of my time when the same result could've been achieved by the application of some open minded reasoning. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

Don't even know why I left an edit summary on that last edit. After all, since this is no longer an article, who would be there to read it? Nobody, of course, except perhaps a) someone who was too dense to recognize that this article should have been turned into a redirect without all the bother of an AfD, and/or b) someone who continues to keep this on their watchlist in the hopes that the article will again be resurrected. But I'm sure there's no one like that around, right? HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)