Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (6th 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. There is consensus below that this article is an appropriate part of our coverage of video games console history. On the other hand, there are several calls to consider renaming this article or indeed much of the "Xth generation" series that could be considered as a requested move or RfC. This closure to keep History of video game consoles (eighth generation) is without prejudice to the outcome of any such renaming discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

As noted, this article has had a cycle of creation and deletion several times before. In this cycle, though the last close was to delete and salt, it was gotten around by capitalizing the "E" of "Eighth", but has been subsequently moved here.)

Now, to step back, this arguably is a substantially different version of the previous deleted pages with the announcements of the Wii U and PS Vita units. But, and this is important, there are no sources that have defined either of these as "eighth generation" units. Though Nintendo, Sony, and other journalists have called them "next generation" units of units that are listed in the seventh generation, the term "next generation" is a loaded peacock term in the press simply to describe any new version of hardware. Using the facts that "Nintendo Wii is 7th gen" and "Wii U is claimed to be next gen" to come to the statement "Wii U is 8th gen" is a gross violation of WP:SYNTH at this point. It is also contrary to how generations are more commonly defined, usually based on when all console makers make major shifts in hardware and software (eg 6th to 7th gen consoles are differed by the emphasis in high definition, online functionality, and motion sensing). The consoles listed here do not drastically change the landscape of hardware, so even by that measure it is difficult to call them 8th gen units.

The short answer: there are no sources to support the "eighth generation" part of this article. The other details are either already in the seventh generation or respective console articles already. M ASEM (t) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And to add: I do see that the first three sources on the page are claiming "Wii U is eighth generation". However, while I don't necessarily question the reliability of these sources, these are not major video game news sites, but instead individual pundits. The other generation terms result from the whole industry adopting the fact that console X is in generation Y, and part of this is circular definitions based on how the set of WP articles has been set up. I believe it is much better to wait for the bulk of the industry to clearly assert the Wii U as 8th gen than to go off a few questionable sources to make that claim.  (This issue of "generations" has been a long debate at the VG project, and most agree that if we when by release year instead, we'd be better off and avoid the synthesis issue; not an issue on this AFD debate but a point to consider) --M ASEM  (t) 13:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting that I support a Rename to "History of video game consoles (2010-present)" per statement at end of current discussion in lieu of deletion. --M ASEM (t) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * <>Comment And the article was reviewed by myself and another admin, Phantomsteve. We believed the article was, as Masem says, "arguably" substantially improved. If you like, you can see the discussion on my talk and Talk:History of video game consoles (eighth generation). Probably, I could have saved us all the bother if I'd just deleted it and referred the creator to WP:DRV. Dloh  cierekim  13:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Considering that we have History of video game consoles (first generation) through History of video game consoles (seventh generation), it seems a bit silly to be deleting this article. Regardless of its past/current merits, we know that eventually this article will be created.  What's the point in going through all the WikiDrama of nominating an article for deletion knowing full well that it will eventually be created?  This is a waste of the community's time.  I wish editors would spend their time and energy on things that are actually important or make a difference.  (BTW, I'm not sure if WP:SYN applies since WP:OR allows for simple math: 7 + 1 = 8.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I note that the first AfD discussion happened 5 years ago before any next gen systems had been announced. With Nintendo's and Sony's announcing their new systems, the situation is very different today.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We know and probably can source that they are working on their next systems, but for all that, WP:HAMMER applies. And that still doesn't mean that MS' or Sony's next console is "eighth generation".  The probably again comes down to the phrase "next generation" having many different nuanced mentings between the press and academic coverage of the industry.  Just because manufacturer X with existing console A and makes new console B, does not put A and B into different generations, even if they themselves describe it as "next generation".  The bulk of the industry needs to identify what the eighth generation is (they haven't, much less wiht the other generations) before we can be talking about it. --M ASEM  (t) 17:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Masem: You did not address my point. So far, 33 editors have wasted their time in commenting on this AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the point. While there likely will be an "eighth generation", there is not enough reliable sources from the whole industry to know if that actually exists. We cannot be sure the Wii U is part of that - the 7+1=8 argument doesn't work because "next generation" is a peacock term and abused by the industry. This article basically is banking on a presumption of what "eighth generation" will be, which is why WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. --M ASEM  (t) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you didn't understand my point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want? Yes, 33 editors commented, but so what? As your link also showed, most people commented only once. So what? So some people spent a few minutes tops writing a short response. That's hardly setting the community back in their work. (On the assumption that they would be posting elsewhere if not here, which may or may not be true.) Sergecross73   msg me   15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it's a waste of their time which could be better spent on something else. What do I want?  I'd like editors to use some common sense before embarking on a fruitless endeavor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand not agreeing with Masem, but I would think that the length and detail of this discussion, shows that there some sort of area for discussion, and thus, legitimacy to at least nominating it for AFD. To each his own I guess. Sergecross73   msg me   15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Two of these consoles aren't even out yet and I agree that the term Next Generation is thrown around quite a lot and what officially defines one console being part of a new generation is unclear. I wouldn't accept this article until either:
 * More information about the consoles (Vita and Wii U) become avaliable - i.e. are they really next generation consoles
 * All the consoles are released - with 3 consoles out I think that would be acceptable for the article to stand
 * Or when both Microsoft and Sony announce their new consoles. TurboGUY (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Userfy Since gen 8 is inevitable, why don't we userfy this so the creator can work on it till it's sure of passing. He can contact those now seeking deletion for input on when that will be. It's worked in the past for not quite ready articles, and I agree community review along the way is needed to head off trouble. The creator will need to agree not to move it or recreate the article till ready. Dloh  cierekim  19:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to keep Dloh cierekim  16:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Masem covers a lot of my problems with it. I imagine I'll expand on this as this discussion expands on... Sergecross73   msg me
 * My biggest problem with the "8th Gen" term is simply that it is not widely used in the industry. Everyone may say "last gen", "current gen", "next-gen", but no one numbers them. IGN doesn't have an article titled "3DS kicks off 8th generation!". Gamespot doesn't have any articles titled "Developer excited for Nintendo's 8th Gen system" or "Sony hints on 8th gen PS3 Successor". If it's not used widespread in reliable sources like this, then it certainly shouldn't on wikipedia, which requires us to base all its information off of such sources... Sergecross73   msg me   12:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for now pending the production of evidence of widespread, frequent use of the term "eighth generation" to describe a set of video game consoles, in articles by reliable, well-regarded video game trade publications and the like. Yes, the eighth generation will eventually reach us.  Unless and until we see evidence that the term is widespread in reliable sources, the article should be deleted.  The day that someone provides the clear, obvious evidence that everyone is using the term (this could be tommorow, for all I care, but I don't see it today), then we can recreate it. -- Jayron  32  00:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Regardless of what defines a "generation," these new consoles are clearly not 7th gen, as they could not be made with the technology of the mid 2000s. And just what kind of change in the "hardware landscape" are you expecting?  The Nintendo Holodeck?  The 3DS and upcoming Wii U and PS Vita are all backwards compatible with the games of their predecessors, and thus will inevitably make them obsolete.  Previous consoles of the "the big 3" were like this as well (the sole exception being the PS3).  Just because the term isn't in widespread use doesn't mean the article should be deleted.  At what point will it considered to be in "widespread use," and who will decide that? Eridani (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. You can't say a term absolutely fits something "regardless" of it's definition... Sergecross73   msg me
 * Sorry if I was vague. What I meant was that if a generation is defined by time or technology, then it will only be a matter of time before game journalists consider these consoles the next generation. Eridani (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably at least the first few delete closures were appropriate as speculative, but at some point, things become real. There are sufficient sources now to write an article  DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I really don't see the point of deleting or user-ifying this and then re-creating it 3-6 months from now when more sources appear. WP:CRYSTAL is for articles where there's uncertainty about the subject matter. I don't think anyone realistically doubts that a) additional references discussing Nintendo's console will appear, b) that these consoles will be referred to as "8th generation" very shortly, c) that Sony and Microsoft will very shortly start making noise about their own next-generation consoles now that Nintendo has given a public hardware demo, or d) that an article created 6 months from now would look almost exactly like the present one. We've seen working hardware, we have release dates; the article's subject verifiably exists. So, by all means stick a "needs more sources" or "event in progress" template on the article, but enough with the delete/recreate revolving door. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of your arguments are based on WP:CRYSTAL - "This will happen", "That will happen" - predicated on the assumption that the Wii U represents an 8th gen system. The latter point is the point of contention - it is not adequately shown as 8th gen, nor based on past progression would its hardware differentiate itself from the 7th gen. If the overall gaming press accepts that it is, ok, then we have an 8th gen article, but that point is not yet shown.   Note that this is why I dislike the "generation" approach, and rather see year ranges used. This article could easily be "History of video game consoles (2011-)" and there would be zero issues with it in its present state. But if we're sticking to "generation" there needs to be a strong definition for that inclusion, otherwise it is much OR and crystal-ball gazing. --M ASEM  (t) 03:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Phrase "eighth generation" causes a problem, maybe we should move this article to History of video game consoles (2010s). Almost every source calls 3DS, Vita and Wii U consoles of the next generation - so they don't fit here. Kociak (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you're saying, but that doesn't really describe a "keep". Sounds like more of a "delete but recreate with different criteria" or "Move to this article name" type scenario... Sergecross73   msg me   12:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There's an article for the History of video game consoles (seventh generation), as well as its six predecessors. There are consoles and handhelds announced, demoed, and released that do not qualify as seventh generation consoles. WP:BLUE applies here, 7 + 1 = 8; see section five of WP:OR for additional details. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of there eventually being an article about the 8th gen, the problem is that the phrase "next generation" is a marketing phrase overused by the industry when they really mean "next iteration". The generations are defined more on overall shifts in hardware, and that's not what is being yet shown here. --M ASEM  (t) 12:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument over whether sources are reporting the Wii U as "eighth generation" or simply "next generation" strikes me as a little off point. The numbering system used by the Wikipedia articles is simply not very commonly used. That's not a bad thing, because it is used elsewhere occasionally and it allows us to have coherent articles on the various game generations (which ARE well supported by sources), but it makes it kind of ridiculous go searching on the internet to see whether or not the term eighth generation is commonly used. The only option I can see other than keeping this article would be folding the content into the seventh generation article. This makes very little sense to me, as it would place the Wii and Wii U in the same generation, something contradicted by just about every source reporting on the Wii U. It's not like we can just pretend the Wii U was never announced. Honestly though, I think we need to reconsider the structure of the history articles. They work really well for the 3rd through 6th generations and possibly for the first two as well, but it seems like going forward things are going to be much more hazy and less well-defined. Jeff8765 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this gets to the heart of the matter: the generations 2-6 were pretty easy to define with hard edges; going forward, its more difficult, and why a number of video game editors (not enough to establish consensus to make the change) supported replacing the generations with year ranges, which are not original research and easily verified. Right now, it is too fuzzy to say for sure if the Wii U is 8th gen, but it certainly is a console in the "2011-present" time period. --M ASEM  (t) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one wants to "pretend the Wii U" didn't happen. This isn't supposed to be a criticism of the Wii U or any of the other systems considered for this "8th gen". It's a criticism of this categorization of generation as a whole. And no one wants to "fold it into 7th gen" either. I think the first step to changing things is to not categorize this as a subjective "8th gen", and once we've established that, go back and re-work past "generations" as well into something more objective. (Like years, as Masem suggested above.) Sergecross73   msg me   15:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's that outlandish for the WiiU to eventually end up in the same generation as the Wii--or maybe I should say end up in the same generation as the 360/PS3, if those turn out to be its major competitors. For all we know now, it may turn out that the release of the Kinect/Move + WiiU was the dividing line between the first part of the 7th gen cycle when everyone had different basic capabilities and... whatever happens now that motion + HD + online are standard everywhere. Maybe there'll even be a couple new big killer features (based on the handhelds? tight handheld integration?) which are sufficient that people define an 8th gen that actually includes the PS3 and/or 360. My point being--everything is highly speculative until the competition is actually underway, whether by release of consoles or even just competing hardware/feature announcements. JTSpender (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Let it be. It's already happening. Generations are really less about technical prowess of the machines -- which always increases to some degree -- but more about the competitive business cycles of hardware. Groups of consoles are purposed to succeed their predecessors and compete against their counterparts in the marketplace. This much should be obvious to the observer. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; generations are more about the business aspect of the industry then they are about the technical aspect of the industry. Consider the Atari Flashback and the Atari Flashback 2; one is a sixth generation console, and the other is a seventh generation console. Both are based on the concept of a system on a chip, and both are technologically similar. The only reason one is a "sixth generation" console and the other is a "seventh generation" console, is that one succeeded the other, and one was released alongside other seventh generation consoles. Looking at the technical aspect of things for a moment, the 3DS, PS Vita, and Wii U clearly don't belong alongside seventh generation consoles. The 3DS utilizes glasses-free 3D graphics, which to the best of my knowledge, is an industry-first for handheld devices. The PS Vita incorporates 3G cellular connectivity, which I don't believe has been incorporated into any other dedicated handheld gaming device. The Wii U allows the console to stream an entire game to the controller without any form of processor inside of the controller itself. Again, this is an industry-first to the best of my knowledge, and each of these changes represents at least some shift in hardware. The DS (and its various permutations) preceded the 3DS, the PSP (and its various permutations) preceded the PS Vita, and the Wii preceded the Wii U. As long as the DS, PSP, and Wii are seventh generation devices, the 3DS, PS Vita, and Wii U are eighth generation devices. The difference between a generation and an iteration is essentially arguing semantics. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frankly this should be a SNOW KEEP in my opinion.  We already have articles for generations 1-7.  It's clear that there is or will be an 8th generation.  If there's disagreement on whether Wii U or PS Vita represent a new generation at present, this debate can be mentioned in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with many of the Keep reasons above. Also, the latest "in the news" post is "The Electronic Entertainment Expo 2011 closes, having featured the next generation in console systems." So, let's keep this article as it makes sense to have it for the "next [eight] generation". Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to anything that doesn't include the words "eighth generation" in the title, since this is the only point of debate. There's no discussion about the article's existence; all sources agree about there existing a separate 'next generation', so the concept is well sourced but the term is original research. Having previous articles with the same naming scheme is no basis for keeping the title, since the naming scheme is also being contended. Diego Moya (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest using Next generation (video game consoles) as an over-arching title, and then renaming existing articles by year. Diego Moya (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep You know, there are probably some major sources calling them 8th Gen eventually, probably much sooner than later. Let's wait. Logan The Master (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, not only does that rationale violate WP:CRYSTAL, but it's not likely. Reliable sources in the industry (Gamespot, IGN, etc) don't use the term 7th gen currently, why would they start with 8th gen? Sergecross73   msg me   14:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So why don't we also put History of video game consoles (seventh generation) in Articles For Deletion? If no "reliable" source uses 7th gen, shouldn't that be considered for deletion, too? Logan The Master (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF (nor WP:ALLORNOTHING) is not a very compelling reason either. Those articles have been a) proposed for renaming, and b) received lots of references describing which consoles belong in that time frame and what characteristics define them. The reasons to keep those articles do not apply to this one. I'm OK with having an article about 'well-sourced unreleased consoles', but it's too early to say that it's a separate generation and to know which consoles should be included in it. Diego Moya (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Logan, I would like to delete all of the generation articles, or rather, atleast mold it into something less subjective (ie year timeframes). I have been rather active in the discussions about getting rid of the generations, as shown here. But as Diego Moya says, that's not really valid a valid argument for or against this AFD. Sergecross73   msg me   20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a valid argument because you are against the premise of having these kinds of articles in the first place so you're probably biased against this article based on the premise that you don't believe any of these articles should exist. These articles have been deemed appropriate for wikipedia. The Wii U is an 8th generation console, so it's appropriate to have an article on it. ScienceApe (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not bias, I'm just applying the same reasoning/policies to more than one related article. Sergecross73   msg me   14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to a catch-all page for consoles that haven't yet been associated with a "generation". It is far too early to be determining console generations; doing so now is purely speculation. As others have stated, console generations are based primarily on console competition & release dates, with some consideration for technical similarities. It is not "clear" or "inevitable" at this point what the WiiU will be competing against. One possibility is that Sony, Microsoft, or someone else releases a console within a couple years of the WiiU and a new console generation is started in earnest. Another possibility is that the WiiU ends up not being a large technical step beyond the PS3 & Xbox 360 and other console makers are content to sit on their current systems for much of the WiiU's lifecycle (or perhaps make minor upgrades in the form of new add-on systems like the Kinect/Move or consoles with the same architecture/OS/etc but slightly faster chips) and they don't come out with truly new consoles until a time closer to Nintendo's *next* console. Or something even more unexpected might happen before a "new generation" gets underway: convergence of consoles/handhelds, the failure/dissolution of one or more of the major players, the release of new technology that makes the WiiU look decidedly "last gen" in comparison to what everyone ends up releasing, etc. The point is, this is all hugely speculative at this point, which is, as I understand it, not Wikipedia's role. JTSpender (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC — JTSpender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. If you have a problem with "8th generation" then please change the "1st to 7th generation". SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We might very well end up doing it, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Diego Moya (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While the 3DS, PSVITA, and WiiU aren't being described as 8th generation specifically, they are being described as next generation. Also, given that Microsoft and Sony have also announced successors to their current hardware to be released by the end of 2013, it's just common sense that we're at the beginning of a new market cycle, and thus a new generation. Plus, we're going to need this article sooner or later anyway, why wait until 2014? The Phool (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL; since there is nothing that strongly defines what the "8th generation" may be, it is presumptuous that we can continue organization consoles that are 3 years out by the same metric. --M ASEM (t) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though I'd bet my life on a new console competing with Wii U not being 3 years out, it's irrelevant. Since we're lumping the handhelds in with the consoles, and the 3DS and Vita are by every definition a new generation, they justify this article. Exodite (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. All major sources agree that these systems are part of a next-generation, so this article isn't going anywhere.  As for the naming convention, I'm fine with how it is right now (1st - 8th generation).  It's a naming convention that's easy to group the systems into and refer to, which is essential.  If we're going by what sources/people say, then I rarely see people refer to the SNES as part of the "fourth generation", but I absolutely never hear it as part of the "1987-1996" generation either.  The most common one is "16 bit generation" or SNES generation, but both of those come along with their share of problems.Exodite (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again "next-generation" and "next iteration" are used interchangably and confusingly by marketers, so a "next gen" console of a 7th gen system is not assuredly 8th generation. The reason to use years to organize the dates is that 1) there is then zero original research in placing the consoles (And handhelds) in the proper location and 2) we can still address what people sometimes call these systems, like the 16-bit or 4th generation examples.  --M ASEM  (t) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Consoles still have to be grouped as a generation. Using years exclusively as a naming convention forces the addressing of when exactly a generation "began" or "ended".  Are we really in three separate generations at the same time right now?  Different naming conventions don't have that problem. Exodite (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there's no "requirement" that consoles have to be grouped into a generation. We can define years that make the most sense in how sources compare consoles; the Wii, PS3, and 360 are generally compared among each other, just like the PS2, Xbox 1, and GameCube.  We don't know how the Wii U will be compared yet, particularly since it overlaps the other two existing consoles a great degree and is not a significant advantage in hardware from them.  --M ASEM  (t) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making a lot of assumptions (stated in a factual-like manner I might add) when all sources are telling a different tale, which is that Wii U is a noticeable upgrade over Xbox 360/PS3, Microsoft and Sony are both confirmed to be working on new consoles to compete with Wii U that are looking at 2012 or possibly 2013 launches, and another typical console generation is on its way. Exodite (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "All sources"? Show them. And even if they all confirmed that, you still haven't addressed the next-gen/next iteration confusion.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one confirming that Sony has a new console in development[]. I could probably dig up other articles, including those from IGN suggesting 2013-2014 launch dates, but I prefer to avoid them, because I consider such dates to be WP:CRYSTAL. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant sources showing that gaming journalists consider the Wii U to be a technological step ahead of the 360 and the PS3. That's what Exodite meant, too.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 14:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, TheStickMan. Would these sources be a good start? GoNintendo, Industry Gamers, and Entertainment Weekly. In the latter article, I'm specifically referring to the quote from John Riccitiello in the third paragraph. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That says nothign about being "technologically advanced". The addition of the touch screen gamepad is considered "transformational", and that may be the defining element of the 8th gen, but that's not yet an established definition to that point. On a tech side, people have pointed out that the Wii U is now at best comparable to HW features as the 360 and PS3, and thus by old generation definitions, should be clearly a 7th gen unit. --M ASEM (t) 05:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The Wii U launches the 8th generation race, so having an article documenting it (and the others when they're developed) is now appropriate. E3 is already generating reliable sources on the topic. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - the term "next generation" is a WP:PEACOCK term used for PR purposes. Furthermore, the 3DS is not a console system; it is a handheld. In essence this article is full and has been of original research and speculation. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very Strong and Important Keep - E3's passed and things have been confirmed. We already have three consoles so I think that it warrants this article. -- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Handhelds are not collective considered part of "generations", only grouped with consoles where they make the most sense. Thus, there's only "one" console here, impossible to define a whole generation by. --M ASEM  (t) 04:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. Consensus here is overwhelming, and the article is relevant to an blurb posted on the main page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit premature. Yes, there are more people saying keep, but keep in mind it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Many of the "keep" rationales are not really valid, with arguments like "8th gen is coming eventually" (WP:CRYSTAL) or "It worked for gen 1-7, why not now?" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).  Sergecross73   msg me   22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, many of the keep votes are backed up by verifiable sources (including ones that actually state '8th generation'). On the other hand delete side of this debate has a strong whiff of WP:OWN, which some people thinking that a consensus elsewhere trumps the consensus here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnsemlak pretty much summed up my opinion on this discussion. I also feel that it should be closed per WP:SNOW. On the "keep" side of the debate, I see people pointing to devices that are either currently available or have been publicly announced with release dates and specs. I see sources pointing to these devices being part of a new generation, and I've yet to see a substantive argument that refutes claims that these devices are part of a new generation. On the "delete" side, I see an argument that's primarily an argument of semantics; specifically, over the use of the term eighth generation. If Wikipedia changes the use of the term "nth generation," the article can always be renamed, but deleting it now seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me. 67.84.174.130 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no way there can be SNOW as neither side has an argument that is completed dismissed - eg there's no obvious consensus yet.
 * But you're asking people to prove a negative, eg "Find articles that say that the Wii U is not an eighth generation console" which of course aren't going to happen. Instead, I can point to two leading industry figures, John Carmack and Wedbush Securities  that place the Wii U in with the 360 and PS3, and certainly not as a separate class or generation.  This comes down to the fact that the "eighth generation" will only happen when the industry as a whole adopts the term, not just because one or two pundits say that a console is an 8th gen console.  Will the 8th gen happen?  Certainly, but we don't know when - it may have already happened as I've seen some creative analysts consider the grouping of motion sensing and control on top of the existing consoles to be a new generation in-of-itself.   But I wouldn't call for an eighth gen just because of this.  It needs to be a universally accepted term in the gaming press clearly definiting either the criteria to be part of it, or explicit in what consoles fall within it. --M ASEM  (t) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you remember where did you see those analysts that consider motion sensing+HD a new grouping? I'd love to read that reference, since I share that same opinion. Diego Moya (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a few months, might have been shortly after last year's E3 with the announcement of Kinect and Move. I'll talk-page you if I can find them. --M ASEM  (t) 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Diego Moya (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - One of the main arguments against the existence of this article has been that there are no sources referring to the Wii U as part of the "eighth generation" and that they instead all refer to the "next generation." However, looking through the sources for History of video game consoles (seventh generation) (I'll be honest, I didn't look at all 250 of them, but I looked at a substantial number), I didn't really see any direct references to the "seventh generation," and mostly found things that referred to the "next generation" or things of that nature. Since we have seven existing articles that don't explicitly refer to their contents as a member of a numbered "generation", I fail to see how this argument that this article should be deleted applies here. Furthermore, the argument that handhelds do not count as consoles and thus do not merit inclusion in these articles (and therefore, there is only one actual "console" to be included, "impossible to define a generation by") is demonstrably fallacious, as handhelds have been included in every "History of Video Game Consoles" since History of video game consoles (second generation), clearly showing that consensus dictates that handhelds be included under the broader term of "console." Bstbll (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguement is not that handholds are not part of these articles, it is that they don't define the bounds of a generation but are included alongside the consoles that make the the most sense (the GBA to the GC, the DS to the Wii, the PSP to the PS3, all due to interoperability); however, handheld unit changes don't define a generation (people were trying to create this article based on the 3DS being called "next gen" which is why it was salted after deletion before). The seventh gen article has a similar issue in that there's not a lot of strong sourcing for the term itself - but there is at least academic reference that gives us what gens though 6 are generally called, and because we are on the far side of the current generation, it is certainly much less OR now to consider the 360/PS3/Wii group as 7th gen, than to assume the Wii U is an 8th gen machine when nothing is being compared to it (even what MS or Sony may have out there).  --M ASEM  (t) 12:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Serge and Masem have essentially voiced my thoughts. I mean, some of the Keep rationales involve deductive reasoning, as in: Wii U is "next-gen", 8 is the next number after 7, so the Wii U is an 8th-gen system. I see someone who cited WP:CALC in defense, I stand by Masem's response to that. Others are essentially, "We should keep since it's going to happen anyway". WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Confidence that something is going to happen is one thing, but there's no reason for anyone to be 100% sure about this.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral The amount of contributor time which goes into these discussions is depressing. Cut through the crap and it boils down to whether a console goes in article D or article E, and we need prolonged debates about this shit every month? Just change them into date ranges and leave 'next gen' to the marketing lizards and message boards. Someoneanother 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, here! - While other articles desperately need attention here we are arguing over semantics yet again. There is no right answer here, and yet we want to endlessly nitpick at stuff like this when there are lots of other things that need done. --Teancum (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see a different rationale being applied by the people that said keep than any of the other times before it was deleted. The entire article is based on wp:crystal information of consoles yet to be released, let alone be defined by the industry at '8th gen".  Definitions of "8th gen" because a few blogs state this may the 8th gen does not in any way constitute an industry acceptance as, which is the consensus that we go on for these articles per the Wikiproject Video Games.  And the whole handhelds section is out out of control with simply information that these handhelds exist or are planned to exist and nothing actually tying them to an 8th generation over any previous one.  Handhelds do not define a console generation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the very wp:crystal policy you reference, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced", specially when "the subject matter [is] of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This is the current state of the scene; many reliable sources are producing sound articles about manufacturers evolution of the gaming industry, and the announcement of a new console cycle by Nintendo is a strong argument that was not present in previous discussions. If the term "eighth generation" is the major stumbling block, just don't use it - but don't delete the well referenced article about speculation of future consoles. Diego Moya (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a snowball. The Wii U is an 8th genereation console. We have two 8th generation portable systems. Listing this for afd seems plain stupid. ScienceApe (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Say what you will about this AFD, at least the person who listed it gave a rationale. All you did was make a statement with absolutely no reasoning other than "it is what it is". Sergecross73   msg me   14:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why delete the article? No references, but it's good info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.165.6 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Good info" isn't enough. Wikipedia needs sources for verifiability.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand that "next generation" is often a marketing term, but the current game console market is essentially 3 companies. Nintendo, whose consoles have virtually defined the last 5 generations, has publicly announced their opinion that the new generation is starting. There are sources supporting that Sony has done so privately with their development of the PS4. That only leaves Microsoft, and if the big 3 declare the "next generation," I think that outweighs anything the other parts of the industry do or do not declare about the existence of the 8th generation. Khassani (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (since my view is known). The problem that we have with video game generations is that they are defined in general well after the generation has actually started or even after the generation has passed, and not on the bleeding edge of that generation.  Its same with any gross qualification of a period of time relative to a topic - the ages of mankind, the periods of painting, even considering significant recessions and inflationary periods despite the evidence of changes at the onset.  I don't question that we will have an 8th generation of consoles. I do not deny that the Wii U may end up being in that 8th generation, but as there is no defined "shape" to this generation as we can make with 1st-7th generations, no one - at least, as a Wikipedia editor - can make that assessment.  We need the industry to say "Ok, now we know we're in the 8th generation", and from past history this likely won't happen until there's more physical evidence of the next MS and Sony console units. Now as to this AFD, a lot of these issues go away if there was a rename to this article. If we called it "History of video game consoles (2010-present)", keeping all the same information but removing the speculative 8th generation stuff (or at least qualifying it as a tentative 8th gen), leaving it as "the industry has yet to classify the Wii U" and keeping all the other previous history articles at their 1-7th generations, I could see that happening. It would properly reflect that the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U are nebulous in relationship to how they should be classified but removes none of the information about it.  As soon as it is clear where the industry drops the Wii U in regards to generations, we can either rename the article or move the information appropriately.  (I am against deleting the information, but presently most of this is duplicate from specific hardware pages).  But basically at the end of the day, the term "8th generation" is a neologism and until it is readily accept as to its definition, we should be avoiding it. --M ASEM  (t) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you could then make a clear statement that your official position in this discussion is to support a Rename. That would help a great deal to build consensus and close this AfD, IMHO. Diego Moya (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: As others have said more eloquently than I, the Wii U is now verifiably here, as part of this generation, and there is a precedent for having numbered generations for video game consoles. And there is no doubt that other consoles will be made that will be part of this generation. Grand  master  ka  03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't want to get too involved here, and I'm not going to regurgitate what has already been said and put foward as justification. But the content of this article doesn't fit into the seventh generation article at all, and there's a general line of thinking that Wii U/3DS/Vita do not particularly belong to the seventh generation anyway. If there is a real problem with calling it "eighth generation", then may I suggest History of video game consoles (post-seventh generation) or something along those lines? I do not like the idea of renaming this article using years, when the rest of the articles on this topic do not use them at all. -- Dorsal  Axe  10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a widely accepted naming convention in the industry with several references already making claims to the 8th generation having begun.  It makes little to no sense to remove 1 generation when the previous 7 are fully accepted and acknowledged by the video game industry.  Simple fact is that we are making this issue far more complicated than it needs to be.  The 8th generation follows the cyclical conventions of the previous 7 generations, is accepted by the industry, has references and doesn't hurt the credibility of Wikipedia by keeping it.  In fact, I'd say we would be doing the public a disservice by removing it which would consitute as misinformation. ViperEmpire (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether generations are an accepted naming convention is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the subjects in this article accurately fall under 8th generation.  A few questionable sites (most of which are stating 8th generation in the context of a possibility) do not denote the beginning of the 8th generation, the industry itself does.  And so far, none have.  Likewise to date, nobody in this discussion has provided a valid reason why these are 8th gen other than speculation and synthesis.  "It is because it is", "It is because it's 'next gen", "It is because a few sites are speculating it is" are not valid reasons by standards here.  I could possibly see renaming the article, but it's back to the same issue of defining what to rename it to.  You can't simply call it post seventh gen because again you need solid and reliable references (by Wikipedia standards) stating these items in that light.  This article was seeded from being recreated because of this very issue, so a discussion would take part first and not after.  Unfortunately an admin unfamiliar with the situation unseeded it after the article creators tried to bypass the seed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment IndustryGamers from BusinesInsider.com and TechTree.com  are a valid sources. Both list the Wii U as 8th generation and all 3 fit the criteria for Identifying reliable sources.  I also have a 3rd source but it's being flagged in the blacklist which doesn't make sense to me nor can I even find it listed in the black list...examiner.com ViperEmpire (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That article has this quote Game consoles have long run in five year cycles and the fact that only now is talk becoming seriousabout the next next-gen (or the “eighth generation of consoles” if you prefer that designation) is a serious anomaly. The use of 8th gen there is clearly a off-handed remark and not intended to affirm that idea. So no, that's not the confirmation we need. And seriously, there's no way any confirmation can be made until there's more known about the potential hardware and software space that the 8th generation will have.  One data point cannot define that.  --M ASEM  (t) 03:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (editing conflict, I actually wrote this before Masem's statement above)I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Business Insider is exactly what I was talking about when referring to "possibly beginning".  Directly from their article "only now is talk becoming serious about the next next-gen (or the 'eighth generation of consoles' if you prefer that designation)", which is the only mention of "eighth gen" in that article.  That in no way states that this is the eighth gen, the eighth gen has begun, or any combination thereof.  Just that there's serious talk about it coming.  Secondly Tech tree is a tech blog, which makes it questionable to begin with and even more questionable with their uncommon editorial disclaimer "The contents of this report are based on information generally available to the public from sources believed to be reliable. No representation is made that it is timely, accurate or complete."  Which is a credibility that would have to be for more established to allow a blog per the reliable resources link.  And even then you're back to the same problem that the industry (i.e. video game industry) makes the call of what constitutes the eighth generation as has been stated plenty of times here and in the previous deletion discussions.  Those two just don't hold up because of that.  As far as your blacklisted source, if a source is blacklisted it's because of any number of reasons - it was spammed, it's editors were posting multiple links to it here in violation of Wikipedia's policies (including COI), etc. What was the source? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Like I said before, I seriously think we are making this far more complicate than it needs to be.  It's almost as though you guys want an article from IGN that does nothing but solely focus on the 8th generation.  I guarantee you the 7th generation page never had this much problem and the fact that none of the consoles on that page have their generation even sourced suggests again that we're complicating this matter.  And complicating it for what purpose?  What do we gain by not maintaining an 8th generation page whereby the previous generation pages still exist without the same sourcing being demanded here?  Also, is using the term "next generation" any more original research than adding a year to a date for something that never had the year given in an article?  For example, a news article says a game will be released on August 4th.  In the game's page, the year will also be given despite a year not being given in the news article.  If that also constitutes as original research then we need to remove a huge portion of all the pages on Wikipedia.  And for the record of commenting here, I'm in the video game media.  No, I'm not using my network for any of those sources I've listed nor will I state which outlet here.  But I just want it to be known that I don't know a single journalist or developer that doesn't believe the 8th generation is now upon us.  The phrase "next generation" is for the media an automatic inference to the 8th generation. Further, count up the number of keeps and the number of deletes and it's pretty obvious we're complicating this way too much. ViperEmpire (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually - an article from IGN or other industry level source that describes exactly what constitutes the eighth generation is what we ideally want. And yes, the 7th gen article did have the same problems this one has. We cannot define a generation until the industry knows what the generation is. This is different from your case of the game with an implicit date, that's not the synthesis that is being used here. Also remember, this is a !vote. --M ASEM  (t) 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with no prejudice against a listing at WP:RM to discuss the name change, or an RfC to discuss the problem of numbering generations. Ignoring the topic of the article name (which is outside the scope for a deletion discussion), the information here is valid and sourced from each consoles parent article. They are part of more recent video gaming history, so I see no reason against an article. As others in the AfD have already stated, we would be doing our readers a disservice by denying them a page which holds a compilation of the history of video gaming from 2011-(future), and instead forcing them to search out multiple in-depth articles without navigational aid. --Taelus (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already an ongoing rfc on this subject, with discussions at the V and N guidelines as precedent. Diego Moya (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The eighth generation is certainly and obviously emerging. This level of new technology simply cannot be classified in the seventh generation. -- Jeff  (talk)   (contribs)   (email)  23:04, 16 June 2011 (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.