Talk:iPod halo effect

Surely this "article" is better servered in the iPod page rather than on its own. There is an article describing the Halo effect as it is, there is no need to create an article on how every product has benefited their individual companies.Aidan

As it is, this page is useless. It was a sub-stub, then redirected to a now-non-existent section of the iPod article. I've put in an RFD. rae 21:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From RFD (March 31 2005)

• Ipod halo effect → iPod - Redirects to a non-existent section of article. rae 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Section targets don't work in redirects anyway, so the question is "do we keep the redir anyway" (no idea, myself). Noel (talk) 00:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Preserve history. There was a stub [1] before it was merged into iPod [2] as a section. Then the section was moved to the introduction [3] and halo effect turned into gateway drug. It is now part of the history section of iPod. GFDL considerations may make deleting it difficult. And (ignoring capital letter errors) it is a common enough phrase [4] with 7,000 hits. My view is that it (the current redirect and history) should be moved to iPod halo effect, and the contents of the old stub should be merged into halo effect. I don't mind whether the redirect points to iPod or halo effect, but I think deletion of the history would be wrong. --Henrygb 00:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, we have to keep the history for Wikipedia:Copyright - content from this page was used on a live page. After looking into this, probably the right thing is to do just as Henrygb suggests - keep the page, move it to the correct capitalization, and redirect to Halo effect (redirecting to iPod it too diffuse a target - most of that article is not relevant). The other option would be to archive it as a Talk: subpage of iPod, and reference it on Talk:iPod. Any preferences? Noel (talk) 14:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)