Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 12


 * 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. I will also create a protected redirect to List of iOS devices. An admin may lift the protection once the new model has been announced and there are sources to write an article with.  Sandstein  06:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

IPhone 12

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing is confirmed yet. This article should be created when the official announcement of the device is made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  04:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete the name is wrong (it should be lowercase iPhone, not IPhone) but the concept of the next iPhone is real, some things are known about it I think Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify, see wp:articles for deletion/IPhone SE (2020). ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean the deletion discussion that should have been closed as Delete but a non-admin decided to override the !vote and draftify it anyways? Not exactly a glowing example of a reason to reward bad behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thing Geoffrey did the right thing, and I'm not being aggressive about it. ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

this article was previously listed at RfD, please see wp:redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26. ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete content per WP:CRYSTALBALL, create as Redirect to iPhone and Protect from editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. At this point, it lacks significant coverage, but Apple will be releasing this and it will be notable once they do so. Might as well keep it in the draft space for now so that the article can be continually improved as more reliable sources become available. I don't think this is an example of WP:CRYSTAL, since it is almost guaranteed that this product will be released and will be notable then, whereas CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I believe this would qualify. At this point, it isn't just speculation. Reputable sources, including Forbes, have written about it. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC) + minor edit --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable  <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're rewarding bad behavior (creating articles on topics that are still months away based on rumors and speculation). Moving it to a draft leaves them in the edit history and as a "contributor" when all they've contributed is... rumors and speculation. Rewarding bad behavior is how you end up with MORE of these articles cropping up, not less... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that draftifying this article will "reward bad behaviour" - the bad behaviour is your attitude in this discussion not the good-faith creation of content for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sort of like being the first across the finish line in a race isn't a "reward" for someone who trips their competitors I suppose... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment doesn't make any sense at all? Whose competing with who? We're here to build an encyclopaedia so we do what is best for that, which means not deleting encyclopaedic content, regardless of whether that somehow "rewards" someone for writing an encyclopaedia article before someone else thinks they should. This article currently contains a mix of encyclopaedic and non-encyclopaedic information, the correct response to that is to trim out the non-encyclopaedic material not to delete all of it and spend time assuming bad faith of those who disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As there is, at present, no encyclopedic content worthy of an article per WP:GNG, this should be an easy Delete for you then. Also, it makes sense if you consider there are editors out there who like the idea of being able to claim they "started" an article. That was what my race comparison was meant to convey... I do not feel we should reward editors who jump the gun and ignore well established policy against rumors and speculation by letting them have that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you even read anything other people are saying? Given that I've explicitly said multiple times that this article contains encyclopedic content that is enough for at least a section on an article and, that, with other material out there there might be enough for an article that you can somehow interpret that as you have. I really could not care less whether some editors like to claim they started an article because it is entirely irrelevant - unless your motivation for this deletion is so that in a few weeks you can recreate it and claim that credit? I hope that's wrong because it would be disruptively petty if it were. What matters is that we give the readers the encyclopaedic content they are looking for in the best way possible, regardless of who started an article, when they started it or what their motivation for starting it was. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, this article is necessarily going to be recreated. Regardless of whether or not this article should have been created in the first place, once it is already in existence, there is no reason to delete it. This has nothing to do with rewarding past behavior. That's not how we work here. No one is competing for points, and no one is trying to win a competition. We're here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. That's all. And, in case you were wondering, building an encyclopedia does not require regurgitating your argument to every person that disagrees with you. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable  <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. Trim to just what is available in the reliable sources and add prose based on that. Much of this is not speculation but encyclopaedic reporting of notable speculation by reliable sources about a product that will definitely exist and is guaranteed to be notable. I'm not sure if there is enough of that yet for an article, but certainly there is enough for a section on an appropriate broader article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just spitballing here, but maybe you should do more research before presuming there's enough that it warrants an entire article? Because if you did, you'd see, per WP:NOT, it would be a blank article. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again without the assumption of bad faith you appear to be assuming everyone disagreeing with you is applying. You will note that I said "I'm not sure if there is enough of that yet for an article, but certainly there is enough for a section on an appropriate broader article." so you can see I have done some research on this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is enough of that yet for an article —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the whole sentence and stop quoting people out of context. I trust the closer of this discussion will be sufficiently intelligent to do that and note that my recommendation is to "keep or merge". Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So shouldn't it be Delete or Merge? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because as I explicitly stated I don't know if there is enough for an article or not - there might be, my research indicated there is enough for at least a section and the possibility of there being more. There is no justification for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article appears to be largely speculative at this point with a lack of substantive and referenced material. Tarheel95 (Talk) 20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. nothing is yet ready for wiki article. Light2021 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - If we delete the article, won't we just have to recreate it once it is released? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * yes. Which is partly why I'm arguing against deletion (it's also because it contains some clearly encyclopaedic content, which many of the delete voters seem to have overlooked or chosen to disregard). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to say Draftify so the article can remain in a draft, then be re-released when we believe it is time to do so. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I add somewhere? Your ref keeps appearing on the bottom. Also, could you tell me where to put the reflist? Thanks, ◊ <b style="color:#095">PRAHLAD</b> <sup style="color:#707">balaji  (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my reference (it was added by Puzzledvegetable), but I've added . Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify21:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majun e Baqi (talk • contribs)
 * Burn it with fire. CRYSTAL-violating rubbish that will just have to be checked for inaccuracies once the phone is released. Keeping (even as a draft) rewards the obnoxious behavoir of creating articles simply for the glory of being first. Oh, DrPizza! (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for any of that bad-faith assuming hyperbole? I'm not convinced you've read either the article or the section of policy you reference: It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to report notable speculation by reliable sources, and most of this article is just that. As has been explained above no action we take here will be rewarding anybody, and even if it were that is irrelevant to our consideration here which is exclusively about deciding what course of action produces the greatest benefit for the encyclopaedia we are here to build. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, per Thryduulf. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "There are not prominent leaks yet regarding the camera of the IPhone 12 but it may have 12MP front and 12MP+12MP dual rear cameras."


 * Yeah, no CRYSTAL problems there...


 * As mentioned, the benefit to Wikipeedia from deleting the article and starting from scratch at an appropriate time would be avoiding the need to check the extant article for inaccuracies once the phone is announced. Another benefit would be maintaining some vague degree of quality and standards in the meantime.

Notable speculation will be summarised in various articles in the tech press just prior to the announcement. Until the phone's announcement, WP:NOTNEWS applies.Oh, DrPizza! (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to report notable speculation by reliable sources, and most of this article is just that."


 * Delete, or if you prefer more colourful language; Burn it with fire. This is absolutely a violation of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL based on unverified speculation in dubious niche sources; none of which is encyclopedic information until, at the very least, we get an official statement from the manufacturer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. To respond briefly to the argument about it not being a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: I could reasonably see that perhaps speculation of this sort might be notable in iPhone. It's absolutely not notable enough for its own article. Nothing about this is officially known - including its very existence - so, unless and until it alone meets WP:V, it fails the first sentence of CRYSTAL in my view. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.