Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vaporware (2nd nomination)


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

The result was   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

List of vaporware
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The term "vaporware" might be notable in the software industry, but this list is not encyclopedic. It lists software that has been called "vaporware" by Wired News and some other outlets. I argue that it will never become encyclopedic because of the highly subjective nature of the term "vaporware". Our definition: "Vaporware describes a product…that has been announced by a developer…if there is significant doubt whether the product will actually be released." Even if it weren't subjective, the list would never be complete (therefore practically useless for research) because of the raw number of software products announced any given year.
 * Comment hmm, this is a tricky one for me. im going to have to think about it. I do want to inform the nominator that one of their arguments, their last one, that the list cannot be complete and is thus useless for research, is not a valid argument. this list, as is all information (theoretically) on WP, is about NOTABLE vaporware, so will always exclude at least some extremely nonnotable vaporware. even so, because the inclusion criteria, regardless of how well defined they are, will always be subject to some debate, and since we really dont know the complete set of things we could call vaporware, then it MUST always be incomplete, and thats ok for WP. some lists are by definition complete, like, say, the List of centuries. this is not. their other points are potentially valid, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I could be wrong about the list needing to be 100% complete, but this isn't a list of "notable vaporware". It's a list of (arguably) reliable sources that have used the subjective term "vaporware" to describe the development of a software program, mostly video games. I can't think of a use for that kind of information, and as somebody in the last afd mentioned, it invites people to come here and add subjective things. &mdash;Sebquantic (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for your acknowledgement, and i think your other arguments for deletion are very compelling, and need to be thoroughly worked through. I suspect the term may be too ambiguous to be used as the basis for a list, similar to "box office bomb", or other industry specific catchphrases.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup. For what should essentially be a stand-alone list it's pretty wordy but most entries have their own articles. Get rid of the fluff and keep links to vaporware with articles, then it'll follow the usual guidelines.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep some stuff is famous for being vaporware, or being vaporware in condition for a long time. (Duke Nukem 4, for instance... or Windows 1.0 which took forever to come out) 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic list, we should NOT have a category for this and if we do, it should be deleted as well.  Too ambiguous and problematic to possibly maintain.  Subjective lists have no place on Wikipedia, sorry.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The computer business is notorious for vapourware and its nice to see a wikipedia article about the subject. Its well referenced and although it could be improved should not be removed. --Gibnews (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that this proposed deletion is only for List of vaporware, not the main article Vaporware. &mdash;Sebquantic (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per GibnewsDavid V Houston (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gibnews doesn't actually make a compelling argument to retain this subjective list. Is that all you have to say?  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim to sourced statements by RS calling list entries vaporware. There's no reason that such a list isn't encyclopedic: vaporware is an established concept that appears routinely in IT/gaming industry press. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering to clean up and maintain the page? -- intgr [talk] 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced entries now. I also removed those articles from "vaporware" categories, and that made me think - is a Vaporware category and sub-categories something we want, too? It has the same problem as this list - people tagging articles as a matter of opinion. Mdwh (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I would tend towards Jclemens choice above, except that i suspect the list would shrink too much to be useful, and i also am concerned about the labeling of any software or software company with this epithet. its POV to cite the phrase being used if its not a significant opinion. the word has too many shades of meaning, and when taken out of context, ends up like "bomb" or "in development hell" in movies (some lists of films/projects in dev hell were deleted for the same reasons being proposed here). reviewing some of the items listed, many link to articles where the ONLY mention of "vaporware" is in their category listing, with no reliable sources quoted. the article may describe a history which justifies the brand, but i would still prefer that only products which were labelled vaporware by a major reviewer be called such. i think the category may have to go too. it seems to subjective, too informal, too gossipy for a list or category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my previous nomination. I think an article of notable vaporware products would be useful, IFF it had a paragraph written for each entry explaining what happened and why it's notable. But then it wouldn't be a "list" alone anymore. -- intgr [talk] 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (but cleanup). The article as it stands is messy, but clearly there is room for a list of notable vapo[u]rware on Wikipedia. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As a list of "things that never existed" it is not, and can never be, encyclopedic content. Even if confined to "things that reliable sources have called vapourware" a complete list would be "far too long to be of value", which per WP:SALAT is an indicator of an inappropriate topic for a list. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an article on God. What makes it more "encyclopedic"? SharkD   Talk  04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how is that relevant to this deletion discussion? Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- intgr [talk] 16:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've tried to maintain the list so that it's at least based on what a 3rd party source lists, and not what any random editor thinks (which is a recipe for disaster), but there's still the problem that it's a vague term and a matter of opinion - and often a label that's used to ridicule a product or company. Whilst Wired's list might be notable for example, I'm not sure this is really enough for its own article. Particularly notable and well referenced articles can be mentioned either in vaporware, or it can be stated on the article for the product itself (e.g., Duke Nukem Forever) - I'm not sure a list is needed. Mdwh (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unmaintainable list. A few of these games would certainly pass WP:N and WP:V on an individual basis, but on the whole the list will always boil down to original research.  If a particular game is noted for being vaporware then it can be mentioned in that particular article, added to Category:Vaporware and mentioned (again, only if it's particularly notable for such) in the Vaporware article.  As much as this list tries to meet criteria, it will always have the factor of opinion driving it, whether critical or not, making it not verifiable. --Teancum (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is difficult to see how this list can be maintainable under the circumstances. RFerreira (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an ambiguous way of labelling something as having not been completed or comercially released, one which is actively disputed by fans of whatever piece of software is in question. Vapourware is one of those terms where applying the label seems to be more about increasing the label's profile than classifying the thing in question in a meaningful way, if you get my drift. There are numerous alternative ways to catalogue unreleased (but notable) software without compiling a list using this divisive term. Any strongly associated games etc. like the last Duke Nukem can be covered as examples in the vapourware article itself. Someoneanother 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Vaporware is being rewritten, and includes a lot of the examples still on this list. Either because they're notable (Ovation, DNF), or because they help describe how the term's meaning has broadened over time (Secure Digital Music INitiative) &mdash;Sebquantic (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list fails WP:NOT as it has no verifiable source, without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of original research, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 18 April 2010 (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.