Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum Next (2nd nomination)


 * Is it normal, acceptable, practice for the rationale for a deletion to be amended in response to others' votes (and explanations of their votes)? I ask only because I'm inexperienced with this process. --DuncanCorps (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don´t think there are "rules" prohibiting this. However, a good practice would be to make clear what is an original nomination a and what is an update. As this is a second nomination in few months, maybe also pinging participants of the previous AfD would make sense procedure-wise. Pavlor (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The rationale for deletion hasn't been changed, just clarified. I don't think this is unreasonable when some of the respondents were arguing against deletion because I called it a "clone" (a definition that was taken from the main ZX Spectrum page), rather than the actual issue - it's non-notability. MrMajors (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno... it looks a slightly more significant change than a mere clarification. And I am beginning to wonder if this is purely a matter of protecting Wikipedia from non-notable content. Maybe there's some other reasons we're failing to consider. --DuncanCorps (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There appear to be eight more votes against deletion on the Talk page. What should be done with them? Can/should they be moved from there to Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum Next (2nd nomination)? Caveat: I've not even attempted to deduplicate the "voters" there from the actual votes here. --DuncanCorps (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This question (worded differently, but not materially so), and its relevant responses (worded identically) was previously present in Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum Next (2nd nomination) (Compare revisions) but is more appropriately asked here. --DuncanCorps (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." - Guide to deletion MrMajors (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not 'the determining factor', and I don't think anyone claimed it was, but a factor nonetheless... surely, everyone here is keen to ensure that the process is followed as fairly, impartially, and thoroughly as possible, implying that we should ensure that all factors are fully represented for consideration. --DuncanCorps (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I note that the deletion nominator, MrMajors, is now actively contributing to the page. Does this mean that the nomination has been withdrawn? --DuncanCorps (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a helpful comment. MrMajors is entitled to believe the article should be deleted, and to want to improve it as much as possible, at the same time. Thparkth (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for newcomers to Wikipedia
Whatever your view on whether the Next should have an article or not, the only real question in this deletion discussion is whether or not it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Very briefly, something is notable if independent primary sources - newspapers, academic works, magazines etc - give coverage to it in a way that suggests it is notable. Notability is NOT determined by any characteristic of the thing itself. It doesn't matter what features it has, or what it is or isn't a clone of. All that matters is whether those independent sources demonstrate that it is important or not.

(There are other factors that might come up in deletion discussions, like whether the topic is verifiable, or the article infringes copyright, or might be unfair to a living person... but I think it's safe to assume that none of those apply here.)

Given that, any arguments about anything other than notability are largely a waste of everyone's time.

If you believe that the Next should be considered notable, based on independent press coverage etc, you should say that, and explain why you feel that way.

If you believe that the Next is a thing of passing interest only, and not truly notable in the long-term, you should say that, and explain why you feel that way.

Of course you're free to "vote" and comment in any way you like... but the truth is that mostly anything you say about the Next itself, or the article being imperfect, or why you feel it is or isn't notable for reasons unrelated to third-party coverage, will pretty much be ignored as noise by the administrator who closes this discussion and makes the final decision.

Thparkth (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)