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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Since the product is now widely reported to have been released as iPad, the nomination rationale is moot. Sandstein 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep: Delete this article after January 27th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.123.39 (talk) 15:48, 25 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]

The article's very existence posits that Apple will be announcing some kind of tablet at the press conference. Temporary or not, it flouts WP:NPOV and embarrasses us all---and doubtless will embarrass us further come Wednesday! Egnalebd (talk) 09:15, 25 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]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. I quote: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." While I do not dispute that if this device is launched, it will become notable, right now, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist. Nothing in the world makes it exist; it's merely speculation, and Wikipedia is not the place for such, even if it's a collection of speculation from outside sources. C628 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold and delay AfD by a bit, since Apple's announcement will be soon, either, this article will get renamed, let where it is, or deleted, depending on that imminent announcement by Steve Jobs. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the device is announced on Wednesday, how much of the article do you expect to keep? Right now it's essentially just a list of current rumours... Andareed (talk)
Keep - I think its pretty clear from the article that all the points made are not definitely true, but what the article is documenting is the fact that many people and news agencies think the Apple Table will be released soon, which in itself is worthy of an article. It's well referenced - its not as if someone has just written up the results of a chat they had with their friends about what they thought this product would be like - what is said is representative of a genuine widespread speculation that is taking place in society, and that should have an article, even if the content is not necessarily factually correct. What we need to do is ensure that nothing that is speculative is stated as being true - the article must make it clear that any features of the Apple Tablet listed are only widely speculated to exist as opposed to definitely existing. If we do this, the article is perfectly valid. Unnachamois (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of instances of runaway media speculation and innuendo that do not, and will never, deserve an encyclopaedia entry. This is no different. Egnalebd (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold and delay AfD wait and see on Wednesday at the event. Even if there are major changes to teh articles certain parts will still be kept.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep until tomorrow's announcement (yes, it's *that* close now) - show some respect for human time people. The subject (whatever it's called) is verifiably notable and would still be even if it proved to be a hoax. -- samj _in ^out 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth adding that the first AfD (which had far less supporting evidence) resulted in a keep. -- samj _in ^out 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Please wait until the event to continue the event. -- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reliably sourced and encyclopedic report on the wave (avalanche?) of media speculation and innuendo. The speculation and innuendo exists and there is a lot of it so we should report it. After tomorrows announcement it might be appropriate to keep this page and rename it iSlate media speculation just to keep a permanent record of the media hysteria. 85.133.32.70 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete full of rumors and original research. Python eggs (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep good source of sourced information regarding the product before its release today. After Apple announces the name of the product, we should move this article to that space to preserve the article lineage. Mac Davis (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Agreed that while the device itself is not anything more than rumour. The pervasiveness of the rumour, the legitimate news coverage of the rumour, and the business effects (Apple's stocks in relationship to said rumours), is as pervasive, tangible, and historically worthy as the chaos caused by the [| non-existant Alien attack on Grover's Mills, NJ.] Lordandrei (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - You are deleting an article about something that is not released yet, give it a chance!--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Neutral / comment - If no such product is officially announced after 27 Jan then the page could be deleted then. Right now, however, I'd say that deleting is a bit too early. --96.21.156.229 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While the product is still the rumor and speculation, there is so much news and talk about it in mainstream, reliable sources (for instance, 2672 google news articles on 2009-Jan-27) that makes it worthy of inclusion. Even if the product turned out to not exist, it would still be worth an article purely because of the coverage that it received (i.e., something like "iSlate was a non-existant device that was widely speculated and reported on ..")--S-1-5-7 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a significant rumoured product with plenty of sources for that speculation. The rumours and speculation does not originate on Wikipedia. With the number of sources, I don't see how it can be not notable? —Pengo 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This AFD isn't premature, it's too late. Remember that this can't be deleted until the 29th. By then there will be reliable information one way or the other, since Apple will either announce the product or not tomorrow. Even if it isn't announced, there's sure to be tons of stories on how all the media got it wrong. So this debate is pointless, unless someone wants to do a rogue speedy deletion in the next few hours, while they still have the chance... 140.247.250.34 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - And everyone, we may as well hold this speedy until the announcement in just a few hours. Egnalebd (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be too late, and you might already actually know this (but the link is nowhere up there), but the BBC published this item on a new product by Apple yesterday, which I think is relevant to this case. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a moot point now - the announcement is in what, eight hours? Still I checked the article, and once again it just says "One thing we do know for sure is we are going to see some sort of new device or category of device." Random name (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May as well keep, as by the time this AFD is due for closure, the announcement will have passed. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept, though rewritten. At the moment it's purely following the speculation of the supposed Apple Tablet. The fact of the matter is that there has been rumors and speculations for years. Pretty much ever since the death of the Newton. I think that rewriting the article in question, adding all the sources from the speculation that provide some evidence to support that Apple's R&D department has actually been working on a product of this type would be a more suitable article on Wikipedia as it would give into the history of the possible device as well as some of the speculation. --Emoryu21 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to break news or product announcements Wikinews exists for that. The whole article will need to be rewritten after the product launch in a few hours anyway. andyzweb (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to iPad. Newly announced product from a major company, not crystal ballism. --173.13.202.121 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (Sigh. My computer logged me out. Sorry.)[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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.