Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISlate (2nd Nomination)

ISlate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonencyclopaedic and unverifiable information in violation of WP:BALL. Likely also falls into either WP:HOAX or WP:ADVERTISING. Egnalebd (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Egnalebd (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least some of the predictions are attributed to unambiguously reliable sources, such as the Baltimore Sun. By keeping this article, Wikipedia isn't offering any predictions of its own; it is simply reporting that others have made some interesting predictions. On January 27, when Apple is scheduled to make a major announcement on an unidentified topic, this may turn into a speedy keep.- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good papers, yes, but speculation nonetheless. One good indicator of how clueless the journalists are is their contradictory illustrations---I'm pretty sure one of them is a a Game Gear. Supposing now that the thing is real, this article is either an outgrowth of online Slashdot-style hype (and not encyclopaedic) or an Apple-style astroturfing (and not encyclopaedic). Egnalebd (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources that say the event will be about a tablet and you yourself acknowledge the event is about an "unidentified topic", and so shouldn't be used as a basis for arguing to keep the article. Andareed (talk)

Delete Everything in here is speculation (the reliable sources in question all appear to admit this), as per the first phrase which states "a rumored upcoming tablet computing device". Assuming the name is correct and the product is in fact a tablet, the article as it currently stands will need to be entirely re-written once there are actual facts. Random name (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article, but a collection of speculations. We don't even know for sure the name of this device, should it be released. An encyclopedic article is not there to collect speculations and predictions about a rumoured product. As soon as it is on the market and we have facts about it, this article will have to be rewritten anyway.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indecisive Another 3 more days, we will know whether to keep this article or delete/move this article. By the time this deletion wait time of 5 days is over, there would be some concrete evidence which will suggest to either keep or delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugunth Kumar (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 January 2010
Delete. Speculation/rumour page. When this thing comes out, this entry will need a total rewrite anyhow, and there's no guarantee that "iSlate" is even the correct name. Hairhorn (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. We have the odd situation where there's a lot of 3rd party coverage, but where it's all based on rumour, and so cannot be a Reliable Source. Just because we would normally consider a paper a Reliable Source when they say "This has happened" doesn't mean it's a Reliable Source when all they say is "We think this is rumoured to happen, maybe, this is just speculation". Wikipedia should be responsible and not join in the speculation - we do not want people pointing to the Wikipedia article and saying "Look, it's going to come out" - or worse, the embarrassment if the rumours are not true. Whilst vaporware can be worthy for an article, e.g., Duke Nukem Forever, the point is that there we know there was the actual product being worked on, it just wasn't released. Theoretically, the media coverage phenomenon itself could be considered notable, but (a) the article isn't written from that point of view (instead it's a collection of speculation on what might be released, what some random people think of a hypothetical product, etc), and (b) we'd need 3rd party reliable sources that report on the speculation phenomenon, as opposed to simply joining in the speculation (do any exist?), otherwise we'd be doing Original Research. Mdwh (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defer AfD - Until the offical Apple press release on the 27nd of January. Deleting this article now would be stupid. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that say the event will be about a tablet and you (and others) are simply guessing. Hence the event is irrelevant to this article's future. Andareed (talk)

Delete - The current article is based solely on rumours and speculation. Andareed (talk)
Keep - I read a recent article that predicted there was an approximately 80% chance Apple would debut this so-called iTablet on the 27th. Apple's event is only 3 days away. Deleting the article now would be counterproductive. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what part of the entry is going to be relevant after the 27th? Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is this? Wikipedia is not the place on reporting as fact things that one article predicts might have a chance of happening. And this article is ISlate, not ITablet, surely we should delete this, because the real article and product should be ITablet? Mdwh (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Whether the iSlate is going to be released is not a factor. We have dozens of reliable sources that have commented on the imminent iSlate release, and those sources will not be overridden by the opinions of a few Wikipedia editors. White 720 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero reliable sources that say the device exists, so how is your point about WP:V relevant? Andareed (talk)
What on earth is being verified, then? That there are rumours about a device? Hardly notable enough for an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether the iSlate exists. I'll put that in bigger type: it does not matter whether the iSlate exists. Wikipedia is not a catalogue solely of things that exist. We have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced. It is not relevant that the device does not yet exist. What matters is that the device is being commented on by reliable, verifiable sources, and as such it is notable. White 720 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the reliable source that the Islate is going to be released? And how do I verify it's existence, today? Yes, the commentary might be notable, but as I say above (a) this article isn't written from that point of view, and (b) we'd still need 3rd party sources that document the commentary and rumour phenomenon, otherwise we're just engaging in original research. Mdwh (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend starting your search for reliable sources at ISlate#References. Regarding "it's [sic] existence, today," I'd like to point out that it does not matter whether the iSlate exists. Wikipedia is not a catalogue solely of things that exist. We have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced. It is not relevant that the device does not yet exist. What matters is that the device is being commented on by reliable, verifiable sources, and as such it is notable. White 720 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can write this as big as you want. That doesn't make it more plausible. It does matter if it exists or not. All you have by now is verifiable information about a rumour. --Sylvia Anna (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:V. They do not mention that existence of an article's subject is required. The very denunciation of this article, despite dozens of articles corroborating its subject is (in a font size you prefer) based on original research and is not acceptable. White 720 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you're supposed to do research in an AFD, the ban on OR applies to entries, not to deletion discussions. An AFD with no research on the part of the posters is not much good. Hairhorn (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you mean is not "we have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced" but rather that there is verifiable information that Apple will announce something, and that people are assuming at this point that it will be something like the iSlate that people have imagined. I think it's a moot point though - it's clear that if the page were deleted, people would immediately re-create it. Might as well leave it until Wednesday. Random name (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We have verifiable information that the iSlate is going to be announced." No, we don't. There's news that something might be announced, but we have no idea what that is, be it an iSlate (sic), or whatever else. This article goes far beyond that statement, by giving speculation on features and so on. By all means edit the Apple article to say "Apple will announce something" (though I'm not sure that announces for announcements are particularly notable). I've already covered the issue about the notability of the news coverage in the comment you replied to - that's not what this article is about. Mdwh (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per my reason before in the first AfD. —Terrence and Phillip 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons stated above. The coverage and rumors floating around by the future announcement may be notable and verifiable, but there is as of yet no conclusive evidence to show that anything called the "iSlate" will be demonstrated on the 27th. And even if there was, much of what is stated in the article is not even directly related to the apple release (the copyright and trademark info). will381796 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]