Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (3rd 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 delete. John Reaves (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Although the article is clearly not crystalballing, it is well sourced and does not claim to state what will happen during the eighth gen, i believe that there has not been enough improvement since the last time it was deleted, which can be found here. J.L.Main 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE THIS ARTICLE OF CONTAINING PURE SPECULATION WITHOUT GIVING AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L.Main (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 March 2007
 * As the person who wrote the article i would like to make the request that should the page be deleted it is protected from recreation so that no one else will take me work and create the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L.Main (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 March 2007


 * Delete For all my reasons on the previous nomination. Also, every delete point on the 2nd nomination is still valid - the article hasn't changed at all. The name is still inappropriate (History is something which has passed, whereas we wont see this generation until some several years). Far too many things can change in what we currently have many years until we can at least expect concrete information as to whether these consoles are going to be developed, and who by. Maybe in a year or so time, we can review what information there is, and if decided there is enough solid concrete information, then under a name other than referring to it as it's history. Given this is the 3rd nomination, I would advise protection of the page until at least a year or until we have a suitable quantity of verifyable information that will mean it can't be classified as pure speculative. Bungle44 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for crystal balling. It hasn't happened yet, it may never happen. Eddie.willers 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep i said we should keep the last one and so it would be wrong of me to change my mind simply because i wasn't the one who created the article. The information in this is well sourced and it isn't crystal balling as it makes no claims as to what will happen. the article only says what the current plans are for the eighth generation, not what will happen. it is a fact that Shigeru Miyamoto mentioned at E3 2006 that the successor to the Wii would include high-definition capabilities and almost every other piece of information in this article is like it. it only says what the companies or representatives of the companies have said they are doing with the eighth gen. the article is not claiming that the wii 2 will be HD capable, the article is saying that Miyamoto said that it will. This is obviously an important enough artical to be included, it is not crystal balling and it isn't too early by wikipedia standards all of these; 2018 Winter Olympics, 2024 Summer Olympics, 2066, Apocalypse, Year 10,000 problem, Year 2038 problem, will happen close to the end of the eighth generation are a long time after it is over. J.L.Main 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All those examples have solid confirmed info in them, this does not. TJ Spyke 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They are future events. how can you have "solid confirmed info" for any future event.  my article's info is just as solid as theirs.J.L.Main 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. The whole thing is pure speculation with plenty of guessing and dubious sources. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * speculation? where? i don't see any. could you please be more specific as to what your referring to?J.L.Main 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also speculation that Apple may re-enter the console market with a successor to the Apple Pippin, however they have not yet made any statement concerning these speculations.
 * That entire sentence in itself ADMITS that speculation is very much present
 * The successor to Nintendo's Wii is commonly called "Wii 2" and "Super Wii."
 * Sounds as if we are simply speculating what the name will be - pure guesswork
 * The successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 is commonly called "Xbox 3" or "Xbox 720."
 * Same as above - sounds as if we are simply speculating what the name will be - pure guesswork again
 * Nevertheless, no information or theories have yet surfaced concerning what Sony will do with the PS4
 * Therefore, any information posted is either speculation by gamers or SONY themselves speculating what they will do with the console? It is too early for anyone (including console developers) to even consider publishing official concrete information.
 * Bungle44 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one speculating on the pippin 2, i have sources who are doing that and there is evidence to support the claim. in concern to the names i give, your just looking for excuses to accuse the article of containing "pure speculation" anyone who was unbiased would admit that the article is saying they are commonly referred to by those names and that i'm not claiming any of them will actually have one of those names.  However, i will stick something in so that people like you won't get confused.  as for the PS4, the fact that it will exist has nothing to do with what it will be able to do. There is no information in the PS4 section about the PS4's abilities, the section is only about when it will be released using what Sony execs have said. none of your examples hold any water. J.L.Main 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't once claimed it is pure speculation; I merely pointed out some things which are to an extent speculating what will/will not happen. With this kind of article, no matter how many "sources" or "references" you have, chances are they wont be correct when the time comes. Just because a website thinks something, you are saying that is good enough to include it to backup points in an encyclopedia? If this was being professionally written, do you really think an article like this would base heavily and reliantly upon sources which likely wont even be correct when the time draws closer? Sources mean practically "nothing" with this article. As I said in the previous nomination, not even console makers know what will happen, so how can anyone/anywhere else?
 * Also, why are you voting to keep, yet YOU were the nominator this 3rd time around? It seems you obviously think it doesn't deserve wikipedia space as well, does it not? You either think it should be here, or you think it shouldn't; clearly, you don't seem to know which side of your bread your butter is on. Bungle44 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But don't you see, the article isn't trying to say what will happen if five years. The article is about what the companies have said will happen and what other people think will happen. Its not about what the eighth gen will be, its about what the current, present tense, plans are for the generation and what is happening right now that concerns the eighth generation.  if i filled the article with speculation as to what the systems of the eighth gen would be like than it would be crystal balling and even i wouldn't want the article to remain. I would like to apologize if you were offended by anything i said.  I was tired but i'm a little better now. the reason i nominated the article wasn't because i thought it should be deleted but because i thought it needed to be put before my fellow wikipedians.  It had already been deleted twice before and i didn't think that any one person had the right to recreate it with the consent of those who had it deleted before. J.L.Main 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the companies are saying now, not even themselves can guarantee it will be correct. Sure, they release info of their own plans, which can quite easily change as time goes by, and hence any information entered into Wikipedia could then need to be changed closer towards the time (which I guess will still be a few years yet). Information which isn't correct now will be no use to anyone when we're at this generation, and no use to anyone reading who wants to find out about it (as there is no real concrete information available, by anyone). I also stated in the previous nomination in December about the name (History of..); again, confusing readers who aren't very well knowledged in this field. The fact is, an encyclopedia is meant to inform and provide meaningful information to it's readers, particularly wikipedia, which wont be the case with this article until at least another few years. Given it's prior 2 deletions and current support for deletion pretty much supports any claim that it is very much too early. It was too early 3 months ago, and that still stands today. Bungle44 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get impatient with you. THE ARTICLE ISN'T ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE EIGHTH GENERATION!!!!! it is about what is happening with the eighth generation. happening, as in right now.  the article should be named "History of" because thats what it is, it is the history of what has been suggested or announced or speculated about the eighth generation. the fact that we don't "know" what will happen is irrelevant because thats not what the article is about, it is about what has happened and what is happening in concern to the eighth gen. J.L.Main 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down! I was simply saying I don't think it is suitable for Wikipedia.. "yet". This is a debate, not an arguement, and I am merely debating my opinions (alas I am also not the only one to share these opionions). I understand what you're saying with regards to my comments on the History naming, but for something that hasn't even begun yet, it really can only be regarded as its history when it does. Wikipedia has a very specific purpose, and the content it provides need to ensure that is complies with this purpose. This information may be very useful on your average fan site, but you're forgetting we're talking about an encyclopedia. Information in an encyclopedia isn't published knowing that it could easily change many several amount of times before it is even likely a solid piece of information will standup. Yes, there are many articles related to documenting "current events", but this is not even yet close to becoming classified as such. I understand your fustration to an extent, and my apologies if I have been a factor of that, but try and keep it peaceful! Bungle44 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * did you know that many WWII books actually start with WWI and sometimes before? The authors of the books want there readers to not only understand what happened during the war but why it started, what lead up to what was Europe like right before it began. the story of your life doesn't start with your birth, it starts when your conceived, if not before. the same holds true with the eighth generation. i would say that its history actually started about six months ago if not a year ago since that is probably when people who will be working on these systems started to think about them.
 * i'm not forgetting that we are talking about an encyclopedia. but i think your forgetting about one of the things that makes wikipedia so special, that it can be changed. if someday something in the article ceases to be note worthy it can be removed.
 * and i'm not frustrated, i'm a little annoyed that i can't seem to make any headway with you, but i'm not frustrated. i was the one who instigated this, remember? :)J.L.Main 02:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and Bungle's comments. RobJ1981 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The entire article is full of rumors and speculation. The only confirmed info is that Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are working on 8th generation systems, no actual info will be known for several years. Maybe the article should be protected from recreation as well since it has been deleted 10 times in the last 10 months. TJ Spyke 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure speculation in spite of the large number of references.  None of them reflect even semi-official statements or information and this article is just a collection of guesswork.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete. Take the crystal ball elsewhere, please. Realkyhick 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete and protect from creation, until eighth was announced in five years down the road. We already deleted Xbox720 article; everything else is pure crystal ball. Also, any extremely powerful machines announced or marketing now, even if it's "eight gen" is tech, is still seven gen (eg: PS3) George Leung 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Nothing but a collection of passing mentions to possible future devices.--155.144.251.120 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I <3 sources! Ab e g92 contribs 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and salt. It's a known fact that, barring bankruptcy, each of the current players will plan or are already planning successors to their current consoles. Saying "this representative says it will exist" simply isn't enough. GarrettTalk 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's still the first quarter of 2007 and people are making articles for consoles that might not be made by 2010~2014. As ridiculous as having an article on the fictional Playstation 9. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep The article is well sourced and there is no doubt that there will be an eight generation. So long as sourced articles keep referring to the next generation, the article is valid. The same applies to to the Olympic and Superbowl articles, even if these events were canceled there would still be an article on why the events were canceled. Remember notability isn't subjective, if articles in the popular press are speculating, it is now sourced information. The same goes for the next presidential election. Crystalballing by Wikipedia editors is not acceptable, but the same by Business Week and other publications is. If I guess who the next Superbowl halftime act will be it is crystalballing, but if Rolling Stone does it, its sourced and acceptable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing about any of these consoles mentioned anywhere. Speculation doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This article is being called "History" but the 7th Generation of gaming has just started. Consider salting until 2010 or so. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Normaly i am opposed to articles like this, but this one seems to be well sourced, with only a few speculative claims (which i plan on removing in a minute). I have had a breif read of WP:CRYSTAL and in my eyes, this article doesnt appear to break it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattyatty (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment i just thought you all might find this interesting. When the article for the seventh gen was created all it contained was, "the 256-bit era is said to be including the playstation 3, xbox 2 and the next nintendo system dubbed nintendo 5 by gamers." if that got to remain why shouldn't mine?J.L.Main 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it isn't "your" article; any article in Wikipedia is under the GPL and isn't owned by any particular individual. Secondly, with regards to the 7th generation article, I don't think Wikipedia was a big then as it is now, and I doubt many people were around like now to hold debates like this on a topic of this nature. I think comparing to articles made quite some time ago and questioning the way Wikipedia operated then isn't the best method of supporting what is happening now. Bungle44 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article needs some serious cleanup if it is to remain. While I'm not automatically opposed to an article on such a topic this early, the factual information is not attributable to the sources well enough (despite the fact that the sources are plentifully cited); original research suffuses the entire article, padding and stitching these largely disparate and isolated factoids together.
 * For instance: the article itself states, "At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations and even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation." This seems to be unattributable speculation, couched in weasel words. Has there been any directly attributable statement that this Apple console will continue in the Pippin line? (I would think that Apple would try and distance itself from the Pippin brand, and any negative associations with the original Pippin.) Has there been any directly attributable statement that it could be part of the same new generation as the presumed 720, PS4, and Wii successor? If not, it doesn't belong at all, and its mere mention in the "eighth generation" article is in itself original research, implying something that is not explicitly supported by the sources.
 * While statements have been made about potential new consoles, almost nothing notable has been referenced about an "eighth generation" directly (which relates somewhat my disagreement with the naming conventions for the game console history articles in general, which isn't appropriate for discussion here), nor about how or if these new consoles relate to one another in any generation. A Wikipedia article need to be an encyclopedic resource, and not merely a collection of forward-looking statements on individual devices accompanied with original inferences of a supposed next round in the great "console wars". This is why this situation should be considered distinct from that of articles on upcoming Olympic and Superbowl events. I am leaning toward a recommendation to delete, but am open to be convinced otherwise. Dancter 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i won't say there is no OR, but i doubt there are any articles with none and i would like to mention that i didn't think the article was ready so i didn't create the page, someone copied it from my user page without my permission. since it was just an article on my userpage i wasn't being too careful to avoid original research. also, i've never considered statements of omission to be OR.  i guess i can see how admitting that there is no proof the pippin 2 will be an eighth gen console is OR, but i think your pushing it a little.  i don't see what you mean by "weasel words" but feel free to rewrite it if you think you can do better.  in reference to my calling the console the "pippin 2," when there is no way to tell what a consoles successor will be called the simplest thing to do is stick a 2 on the predecessor's name.  when the article for the wii was first created it was called the gamecube2.  same idea, the article isn't say it will be called the pippin 2, its just something to refer to it as until Apple gives us something better to call it. i stuck it in with the eighth gen because there is nowhere better to put it.  if you don't think it belongs in the article we can transfer it to the talk page and debate it there. if you think there is anything good in this article than please vote to keep it and them simply improve it.  isn't that why your on wikipedia. J.L.Main 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as crystallballing. Clearly one can't have a "history" of something that hasn't happened yet; nor can one create an article based solely on speculation of future products not even announced. A discussion of "eighth generation" consoles will someday be encyclopaedic -- when reliable sources about actual products are available. Right now, all the linked articles are based on guesses, rumours and a smidge of FUD.-- LeflymanTalk 09:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:NOT does not apply in this case. This has the necessary sources, this isn't rampant speculation. MrMacMan 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How are the following statements not rampant speculation?
 * "The successor to Nintendo's Wii is commonly and unofficially referred to as "Wii 2" or "Super Wii."[citation needed] The successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 is commonly and unofficially referred to as the "Xbox 3" or "Xbox 720."[citation needed] At this point they are the only company to announce that they will be involved in the eighth generation. Nevertheless, no information or theories have yet surfaced concerning what Sony will do with the PS4; however, they have stated that it will be released after 2010. Sony says they are planning for the PS3 to have a life span of about ten years, meaning they will discontinue support for that system in or around 2016. However, as Sony believes there is room for "significant overlap" it is probable that the PlayStation 4 will be released well before that, possibly 2011 according to one site.[10] At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations and even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation."


 * "Commonly and unofficially", "even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation.", "it is probable that the PlayStation 4 will be released well before that, possibly 2011 according to one site", and it just goes on and on. Conclusions are being drawn based on interviews and fragments, and a lot of what isn't explicitly stated as speculation instead becomes conclusions drawn from rumors and press releases. There's hardly a confirmed fact to be found here. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ("The successor to Nintendo's Wii is commonly and unofficially referred to as "Wii 2" or "Super Wii."[citation needed] The successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 is commonly and unofficially referred to as the "Xbox 3" or "Xbox 720."[citation needed]) here it's just saying that what nerds like me are currently referring to them as since the companies haven't announced official names yet. nothing is being speculated about so it isn't "rampant speculation," however you could make a case for it being OR since it needs sitation.
 * (At this point they are the only company to announce that they will be involved in the eighth generation.) this is a statement of fact, so far only Sony has officially stated that they will make an eighth gen console. where is the speculation in that?
 * (Nevertheless, no information or theories have yet surfaced concerning what Sony will do with the PS4;) this is a statement of omission. it is just saying that we have no idea what the PS4 will be capable of.  again, you could classify it as OR but i think that would be rather legalistic.
 * (however, they have stated that it will be released after 2010. Sony says they are planning for the PS3 to have a life span of about ten years, meaning they will discontinue support for that system in or around 2016. However, as Sony believes there is room for "significant overlap" it is probable that the PlayStation 4 will be released well before that, possibly 2011 according to one site.[10]) all of this information is sourced. it is either official word from sony or speculation by a source outside of wikipedia which is allowed by wiki rules.
 * (At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations and even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation.") the section on the apple pippin2 being in the eighth gen article would seem to imply that it will be an eighth gen system. this is just saying that we don't know that for certain.  its a statement of omission, not speculation.
 * Lankybugger says, "There's hardly a confirmed fact to be found here." thats because there are almost no confirmed facts to be found on the net. information by the rules of wikipedia doesn't need to be confirmed, it just needs to be relevant and sited.J.L.Main 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what people are referring to the next consoles as. Until we get a development name or a released name, we can't call them anything. It'd be Microsoft's next console, Sony's next console, and Nintendo's next console. It's pretty much assumed that all the companies are going to be involved in the next generation, so that statement is pretty much filler, as is the statement that no information has been released about the PS4.
 * Wild speculation from one source does NOT count as a verified, reliable source. In fact, if you check the the rules on attribution, speculation by media must be clearly be labeled as such. Likewise the PS4 information is just speculation from Sony. It's not confirmed until Sony begins work on the PS4.
 * All in all, if you were to remove all the information which isn't confirmed or an official source, you'd have two sentences about the "upcoming" PS4. Everything else is patent speculation or a statement of omission (which is essentially worthless). Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * if thats how you feel than vote for keep and help me improve it. i mean, isn't that the point of wikipedia?  i would like to point out that the information in the article was copied from my homepage and used to create an article without my permission.  i didn't think it was ready to be an official article then and i don't think it is now, but i know that it can be improved and made into a legitimate article. rather than deleting it, how about we keep it and make it into an article that we can be proud of. i know it has problems, so help me fix them. what is the use of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit if we delete articles simply because some people feel that they have problems?  please change your vote to keep.  if you don't, pointing out all of these problems will have been a waist of time. J.L.Main 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a valid point "if" there was/is any legit and non-speculative valid information available to amend the article with, which could be denied as being purely something which is either writer speculation or fan site/console developer speculation. The main arguement in the last AfD was that there wasn't enough information yet available to hold this kind of article "at that moment in time", and I personally feel that still stands, otherwise you may have amended it with said sources to backup your points about its retainment. Those that vote delete isn't because they don't believe this kind of article should exist, but that it should not exist yet whilst it is too early. Sorry for intruding on your little debate here, but if you amend the article JLMain, with official, verifyable and non-speculative sources that will stand indefinately (e.g: this is console X confirmed by developer X and is in production now, here is the official press release..", then you should act quickly. If you can't provide a similar source or one that people cannot argue against, then how can this article be improved in the near future? Bungle44 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i just went through and re-read the article and i see almost no speculation. i admit that some of the information will cease to be relevant eventually, but that is true with anything that is still happening.  i don't see how anything under the wii2, xbox720 or PS4 sections isn't relevant or isn't something that people reading the article would want to know. i flat out disagree that there isn't any legit and non-speculative information in the peace.  i just don't understand what in the article you are seeing as being non-legit or speculative.J.L.Main 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i just went through and re-read the article and i see almost no speculation. i admit that some of the information will cease to be relevant eventually, but that is true with anything that is still happening.  i don't see how anything under the wii2, xbox720 or PS4 sections isn't relevant or isn't something that people reading the article would want to know. i flat out disagree that there isn't any legit and non-speculative information in the peace.  i just don't understand what in the article you are seeing as being non-legit or speculative.J.L.Main 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: this AfD might go a bit better if the nom, and principal author of the article refrained from engaging in back-and-forth debate about whether there is or isn't speculation. I'm further confused, however, as the nom now appears to be arguing for keep. Finally, I'd suggest that the nom review WP:OWN; Wikipedia articles should not be referred to as "mine" or "my work".-- LeflymanTalk 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 *  KEEP KEEP KEEP 

Yes, there might be little speculation in this page, but name any huge-sized page that doesn't have any speculation! It's true though, Apple would be a major competitor if they reentered. Why delete a page, and then have to re-make it? If you don't keep it, I recomend at least preserving a copy of it. Besides, up until a few months prior to release, the Xbox 360 was still the Xbox 2! AlexanderTG 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.