Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Blue


 * 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. The main issue here is whether the article violates the WP:CRYSTAL policy that prohibits unverifiable speculation on future events and products. I have reviewed the article and the debate and come to that it does. There were a few keep votes after the relisting of the AFD, but the two first don't provide a substantive argument to the main issue (Neither "Looks like an article in its early stage" and "It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted." address the issue; the article was not put on AFD because of its lack of development.) The next two keep votes do point to sources that attempt to address the WP:CRYSTAL concerns, but a few lines is not the significant coverage that WP:N asks for. Fleet Command's analysis also shows that much of the sourcing used in the article trying to address some of the concerns is sketchy at best.

Having looked at the article, I also note that some of the inline citations point either directly or indirectly to web forum discussions, something that does not qualify as a reliable source. Kww pointing out "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." from the CRYSTAL policy and Starblind pointing out that "Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job" also carries weight here.

I have considered the redirect and merge options that some suggested as an alternative, but with the target articles would contain little if any coverage of this subject matter, so Codename Lisa's concern about sending readers "on a wild goose chase" has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows Blue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This OS name and its release date are not confirmed - it's all speculation at this stage. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Hello. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; I do not even need to mention lack of reliable source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-direct to Microsoft Windows. Google News has revealed lots of pages about this upcoming edition, and they even say that it will be released in 2013, which we're not too far away from (although it could be pushed back to 2014 if problems occur.) Is it possible that Windows 8 will still be the newest version of Microsoft Windows even as late as 2024?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Redirecting it to Microsoft Windows will only send readers on wild goose chase. Microsoft Windows has nothing on this subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have there been any rumored versions of Windows that have been disproven altogether?? (Please triple-check your memory of Windows history. Back in 2004, Wikipedia talked about something called Windows Longhorn. Was it cancelled?? No, it was renamed Windows Vista.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Blackcomb" was not the final name of Windows 7. Windows Neptune and Cairo were both cancelled.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neptune is part of what we now know as Windows XP, Cairo was a code name of Windows NT 4.0.--84.194.42.17 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral. Did anyone do a news search on this? I did, so the article is now expanded with several reliable sources so it meets the general notability guidelines. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete there are several sources mentioning this popping up, but at the moment there's nothing to report, just rumour. I doubt MS will talk officially anytime soon either, as that would pretty much kill Win8 sales. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely that's irrelevant to the status of the article? Even if every reliable source thus reported so far turned out to be complete hogwash, because we go on verifiability, not truth, it doesn't matter. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job, leave that to the blogs. I think you're misunderstanding "Verifiability, not truth", which is more about taking reliable sources over some random person's word ("I know JFK was killed by aliens, man, they told me so in a dream!").  It's not at all an encouragement of far-flung rumours and idle speculation. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So rename the article "Windows Blue rumours" - then everyone's happy. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These rumors are no more notable than any other Microsoft OS rumors. --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the stuff in the article supported by significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? Yes or no? -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the only criteria, Ritchie333. If the material comes under WP:NOT, it doesn't matter how well sourced it is, and this comes under WP:NOT.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NOT, that states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable (my emphasis) speculation." -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look down at point 5: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Certainly we can verify that the rumours exist, but the rumours themselves are not suitable content.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really for just opinion pieces and tabloid journalism, where one person randomly suspects something. In the case of this article, we have multiple sources converging on fairly basic an uncontroversial details. By all means remove any speculative stuff like features, but a top level stub that gives the name, dates of leaks and suspected shipping dates should suffice. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the name itself is only speculation so I don't even think we should keep a redirect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Blue&curid=37158564&diff=528097778&oldid=528097060 This] edit shows why we can't have an article on this yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:CRYSTAL concerns. This is speculative material about a future product.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The RfD discussion is still ongoing. Someone has turned the redirect with an RFD template into the article. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's usually fine. In these cases the RFD is closed as moot (I closed the RFD). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The nominator started an AFD without reverting back to a version that contained an RFD template when the RFD discussion was still open. See also Articles for deletion/Windows 9 where the result of the debate was to redirect Windows 9 to Microsoft Windows. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If and when this is confirmed as legitimate, the article can be recreated with reliable sources. --GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 09:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling, based on this, this and this, is that I would suspect if the article was deleted, it would be created in good faith in a week or two by someone who hadn't seen this discussion. For just that reason, I would favour at least a redirect.-- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ritchie. According to WP:R, item #10, redirects that point to an article which contains virtually no information on the subject are candidates for deletion. Such redirects are evil. They send readers to s long irrelevant article and waste their time before they realizes the article contains no information on the subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline, which can be bent per WP:IAR, which I would do for reasons I have just described. Are you seriously telling me that somebody typing "Windows Blue", and going to a page on Microsoft Windows that has a small section on possible future versions (which is what a redirect will do), won't get what's going on? I reiterate - unless salted, the article has a high chance of simply being created by a random editor again. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Microsoft Windows does not have any info on Windows Blue. Even if it had, there is a clear consensus that is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, IAR says ignore rules to improve Wikipedia, not to irritate its readership. "The first and most important factor in Wikipedia for deciding whether to break or to adhere to a rule is whether or not it makes you more popular". (Fleet Command, 5 December 2012)


 * And don't worry about salting or re-creation. It is fixed in just a snap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm ducking out of this conversation as you're not really getting what I'm saying, I'm afraid. My concern is that the article will be recreated by somebody else soon, and we'll be back to AfD round 2, just like Windows 8. How do we avoid that? -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I assure you, I do "get" what you say; I just don't share your concern, i.e. neither I am afraid of the article recreation nor I believe a redirect would stop it. (The fact that we are here proves that a redirect has already failed.) WP:CSD can deal with the case. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Long term I think an article will get established, even if it has to go through a bunch of AfDs or G4s first (such as just about any AfD that gets closed per WP:HAMMER) -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you would have to define a "wild goose chase" to us if you have previously cited the phrase above and elsewhere. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep. Looks like an article in its early stage. Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Georgia guy. It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually there are two good reason: (1) Sources do not verify its contents. The article introduces "Windows Blue" as a new version of Windows, while if you read its sources, none of them says so. They think Windows Blue is a rapid-update mechanism, name of a new update, an update roll out a feature pack or new version of Windows. (2) WP:CRYSTAL says rumors are not allowed, even if the article spreading the rumor is FA quality. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, previously Delete. Even though WP:CRYSTAL applies, there is enough coverage of this topic on a number of reliable websites that an article, even at this stage, may be warranted. Windows Vista, which had the longest development period, was first created in September 2003, so getting a year's head start on Windows Blue might not be such a bad idea. --<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Theverge reached out to Microsoft for comment, however a company spokesperson refused to discuss Windows Blue. And Wes Miller, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "I think we witnessed a new mode of aggressive upgrade pricing this year with Windows 8, and Microsoft could well try that tactic again, really dropping in an incentive for frequent upgraders to do so, If (Windows Blue) is the full-fare cost of Windows, even for Windows 8 users, I can’t imagine that going over too well." IanMurrayWeb (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If I had to put a in front of every statement in the article, all four sourced statements would have received one. Let's have a look:
 * Article says
 * Windows Blue is the codename of an upcoming release of Microsoft Windows operating system.
 * The Verge source says
 * the company is planning to standardize on an approach, codenamed Blue, across Windows and Windows Phone in an effort to provide more regular updates to consumers
 * ZDNet source says
 * Blue is more of a feature pack, which would/could include be a rollup of fixes plus some new features
 * Softpedia source says
 * According to Verge blah blah
 * No offense guys, but I think you should read the source itself instead of just its name!
 * The rest of the stuff written in there do not have a source at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge for now until more verifiable information comes out - eg when the next version of Windows is in beta. For the redirect I would think something like History of Microsoft Windows, which would briefly cover whatever official announcements or anything on the next release published in reliable and noteworthy sources. -Helvetica (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2012 (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.