Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Cafe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 evoking a bit of WP:IAR regarding timescales. The article is likely getting substantial interest as it's now official. We likely need some editorial changes (for example the proper name of the console when available) but that can be covered by a move or merge/redirect. The original nomination of unverifiable sources (whilst in good faith and likely accurate at the time) has clearly been superceded by events where we have strong verifiable sources. Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Cafe

[edit]
Project Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources used (IGN) speak of unverifiable sources giving info on new controller design, HD graphics, etc. It's too early for it to have its own article, and has enough info on it in the Wii article. Delete and redirect. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You insert IGN like it's not a good source, when in fact it's pretty much at the top of the list of reputable video game sources. You may not like them, but that is irrelevant. The "unverifiable sources" that you speak of are always going to remain unverifiable. Why? Because the only people who would have information on the new console (other than Nintendo employees) are the developers that Nintendo has shown the console to in order to gain 3rd-party support. They don't want Nintendo to know that they've been blabbing about their console because of "disclosure of the invention". They could get in serious trouble for that if Nintendo felt like charging them for intruding the disclosure agreement. However, that's not a good practice for Nintendo, because they might lose support for their new console if they're charging all of the developers for crimes against them. That's why Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (EA) have openly talked about the console. They're the juggernauts of the 3rd-party video game developers; they can get away with it, because they know Nintendo needs their support. MeleeDude (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • IGN is not a good source. IGN was behind the "portable Gamecube" hoax several years ago. They claimed it was in development until it was confirmed fake, and then they removed evidence from their articles to cover their tracks. heladyacross (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. IGN's not a good source. I guess that's why so few people visit that site. Or maybe that's why no other video game site ever cites IGN articles... yeah, right. You think one, or even a few mishaps makes a media outlet unreliable? Well, if IGN is wrong, then so is every other video game site on the internet, because they're all covering the same thing. So is every video game site unreliable? MeleeDude (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • IGN has a reputation for unreliable reporting and unprofessional reviewers. You are asking people to take a leap of faith for no good reason. heladyacross(talk) 07:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh? I thought I was just asking for the page to remain until E3? But now I'm asking for everybody to put their complete faith into what's written in the article? Very nice. "IGN has a reputation for unreliable reporting and unprofessional reviewers." Really? When did they get a reputation like that? Are you sure you're not just voicing your opinion? MeleeDude (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you are treating the rumors as fact, and expect everyone to accept it. heladyacross (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • What? IGN is definitely a good source. I just don't like how good sources are reporting about unverifiable sources. Read it again. And heladyacross: He's not treating rumors as fact. He's admitted many times that these are rumors. Plus, calling IGN a bad source is just plain dumb. It's a big gaming site on the web. And please, format your replies correctly. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • If IGN was a good source, they wouldn't report unverifiable sources. It can't be both ways. Meleedude is using logical fallacy to support why this article must be kept. His actions have shown he believes the rumors to be true. He even claimed "this is history in the making." One does not say such a thing unless they believe it to be fact or have blind faith in its validity. heladyacross (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • THANK YOU! At least I can tell that you're actually just debating whether this deserves an article or not. Unlike heladyacross, who is flat out terrorizing the article. MeleeDude (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's redirected, then there is no need for deletion. Also the fact that the section in Wii was copied from the article means that the article can not be deleted because it's history needs to be preserve for GFDL purposes. SNS (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't redirecting require deletion first? Also, explain how the whole GNU license makes us have to keep the article after it was copied to the Wii article. I've never been familiar with that sort of thing... TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No if an article is redirected, it's edit history remains. If an article is merged into another, then the history needs to be preserved. It's the reason why templates like this exist [1]. 02:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of Nintendo rumors in the past have been confirmed. ----iSquishy (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's no basis for the article. "It's been true in the past, so it must be true now." Why not wait until it actually is confirmed? You can't make an article based on rumors. These are noteworthy rumors, and have been included in the Wii article. However, they don't deserve their own article. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also note that iSquishy is the article creator, since he has not disclosed it himself. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Therefore he has no right to voice his opinion? Glad you're not a politician. MeleeDude (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did that come from? I don't see that insinuated anywhere in there. Please, assume good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now you're putting words into my mouth. And you seemed to know a lot about the WP rules, too. You can look at this. I quote: "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." You don't have to feel personally attacked because I want this article gone and go on to imply that I'd be a horrible politician. Though, to be honest, I probably would be a bad one. I loathe politics, anyway... TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. I'll admit that I was unaware that you were supposed to state whether you are a creator or contributor of the article. I guess I would be considered a major contributor to the article. I take back that comment above. MeleeDude (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I'd feel better if this wasn't created until after E3 2011 or whenever Project Cafe is formally announced. To Squish: The article shouldn't be created until the rumors are confirmed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No. You cannot delete this article. It is defended by the crystal ball rule. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The sources in the article are a collection of some of the most reputable sources in the video game industry, including Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, Kotaku, etc. Not to mention Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (EA) told EDGE that they have had development kits for months! These are the three biggest 3rd-party video game developers on the face of the planet! That information is a source in the article: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/sources-confirm-more-details-on-wii-successor . You couldn't have better sources, except for Nintendo themselves, and they're not going to say anything before E3; they never do. UPDATE: If that doesn't persuade you, CNN just recently did an article on the new Nintendo system: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/04/15/nintendo.wii.2.mashable/index.html . Case closed. This page should not be deleted according to the Wikipedia rules, because of expert sources and recognized entities. ----MeleeDude (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But remember: Almost everything goes back to that one French website. All of these sources, despite being reputable, get their info from one random French website that does not name where it got this information. Edge's statements from developers are mixed and don't confirm too much. Nintendo themselves has come out and said that these are rumors. Wait until E3 where it probably will get announced, with concrete info enough to give it its own article. Oh, and that CNN article? "Nintendo could be revealing a HD successor to the Wii console this summer, according to new reports." They're writing about the possibility of it. There's a section about that possibility in the Wii article already. This article needs to go. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 11:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • TheStickMan, the whole reason why I posted that CNN article was because it was a "recognizable entity", and all of the other sources I gave were "reliable, expert sources". The exception to the crystal ball rule. As for 01net, they were the ones who (according to CVG) reported the technical specifications of Sony's upcoming PlayStation Portable (PSP2) or NGP (Next Generation Portable) before any other video game source. All of which (speaking of the technical specs.) were later confirmed. So 01net, actually has good credibility right now because of that. MeleeDude (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you say... makes sense. I suppose that my main worry is that these rumors aren't substantial enough for it to have its own article. It pretty much has been half-merged with the Wii article already (Half because you only undid the edit redirecting this article, undoing only have of the merge that occurred). TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you. I also feel that the Wii article should have a section about it's successor. However, I think it should just be a small paragraph with the basic information about the console that has a link to the (more detailed) Project Cafe article. I would do this myself, but I am not allowed yet, because I am a new user and the Wii article is semi-protected. I'm having to wait for the four day time period before I can edit semi-protected pages. Information about Project Cafe will seem out of place on the Wii article if the information continues to grow in that section (it's too large and takes away from the focus of the Wii itself). I can appreciate and respect your point of view, but I do feel that it deserves a page of its own. MeleeDude (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, looking at the actual article, it tells me very little about the project itself and more about Nintendo's comments of when to expect a console after the Wii and what it may be like. Not exactly article material... TheStickMan[✆Talk] 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I feel like we just did a 180. Look at these comments, they keep questioning everything I've already thoroughly answered. "TheStickMan" I've already given you my argument. You even said yourself that it made sense. You have your opinion, I have mine. Just keep in mind that I've already proven that this article does not meet the grounds for a speedy deletion, because it follows all of Wikipedia's rules. MeleeDude (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • A 180? Not really. I think ThomasO1989 down below has said what I've been trying to say. By the way, 01net got the NGP specs right? So they're one-for-one. That doesn't mean anything. When IGN got some 3DS some some unnamed sources, they weren't considered reliable. 01net is no exception. We can't make exceptions because a site has previously been right. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So you're saying that even though 01net released the technical specifications of the NGP before anyone else even knew it existed... 01net still has not gained any credibility whatsoever? That is ridiculous! Either way, it has no relevance. It seems I will have to repeat myself yet again. It is defended by the crystal ball rule. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The sources in the article are a collection of some of the most reputable sources in the video game industry, including Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, Kotaku, etc. Not to mention Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (EA) told EDGE that they have had development kits for months! These are the three biggest 3rd-party video game developers on the face of the planet! Sound familiar? Even if you think 01net is unreliable, there are numerous other "reliable, expert sources" that are cited in the article, and that CNN article I posted established a "recognized entity". This article has both of those things. Do you think all of these different sources and Ubisoft, Activision and EA are just in part of some crazy, elaborate prank? MeleeDude (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As Stickman said, they're really only 1 for 1. They were right once. That does not make them a reliable source. Furthermore, those sources you're listing, they're not necessarily confirming the rumors, they're merely stating they're out there. They're just "forwarding the information on". They're only confirming they're existence, not truth. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You still don't get it. It's not about how verifiable their information is. It's about the fact that it was reported by "reliable, expert sources" and "recognizable entities". Also, the successor to the Wii is a noteworthy subject. That's what makes Project Cafe eligible for an article of its own. MeleeDude (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Weren't you the one praising their verifiability? Now it doesn't matter? Perhaps I should claim that the original source is not 01net, but the mysterious "source" that they claim to get their info from. We know nothing about this source. Do you say that this source is reliable? Besides, IGN did something similar once. They listed some 3DS specs from an unverifiable source. The consensus was to keep them out. Why should this case be different? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Careful, you're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that anything was "verifiable", instead I explained to you why these "unverifiable sources" are always going to remain unverifiable. Reread my post near the top of the page if you have to. The sources cited in the article is what makes Project Cafe eligible for an article of its own. Also, it really doesn't matter what you think of the sources. Would you argue against the claims of Ubisoft, Activision and EA? They say they've had development kits for months. Why would the juggernauts of the 3rd-party video game developers lie about something like that? MeleeDude (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • More rumors. heladyacross (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Hold on. This argument is confusing me. Let me get some things straight: We are arguing about whether or not Project Cafe deserves an article. You say yes. And now I'll say that your argument is half wrong. You constantly quote, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." So yes, they can be included. But then you take the extra step to claim that now, it needs its own article, too. You have proven that these rumors need to be included. Now you have to give a good reason why this means it needs an article of its own. (And I don't really think the "taking focus off the Wii article" will really be a problem. And when the NGP article first started, there was much more content than what we have now.) And heladyacross: Try saying something useful and read what was said previously. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 11:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I simply believe that it should have its own article based on the notability of the subject, because of the reliable third-party sources (not the validity of the content). MeleeDude (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I was merely stating that Ubisoft, Activision and EA have not confirmed any of the rumors. Their inclusion is yet another rumor being spread. heladyacross (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • For once, I will admit you are correct. Ubisoft, Activision and EA's inclusion was in a rumor. I misread the article and thought that EDGE had directly interviewed the developers about their involvement. While that does not make their involvement in making games for a Wii successor false, it does mean that those sources are still unconfirmed. Nevertheless, the article still contains numerous reliable, 3rd-party sources and etc. Fortunately, I never put anything about those developers in the article. I only mentioned them on this page and the other talk page to back up my argument. However - if I might add - this is no different than your own mistake near the bottom of this page, when you tried to back up your argument by saying that IGN said the new Nintendo console name would not be Project Cafe, as previously reported, but Stream. However, IGN actually reported that Project Cafe was only the codename and that Nintendo is currently considering naming the console Stream. It seems we're both guilty of accidentally distorting an article's content to back up our own arguments. I say it's best to forgive and forget. Mistakes happen. MeleeDude (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • IGN is the one that claims Nintendo will name the new console Stream. It is still rumor. Now you want to forgive and forget? How about I no longer respond to you, and you no longer respond to me? That's much better because I am done rolling in the mud with you. I did not come here for that. Next time I see someone being rude to another, I will not jump in to defend them. That is what got me into this mess of an argument with you, and I even got attacked by the one I was defending. Well you can celebrate now because I am done here. heladyacross (talk)08:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • IGN said Nintendo is CONSIDERING making the OFFICIAL NAME of the new console "Stream". IGN NEVER said Project Cafe was the official name, but the CODENAME (temporary name) for the successor to the Wii. MeleeDude (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is notable, and needs a split from the Wii article because if you people would expand the article instead of deleting it, there are many more sources out there then what is currently in the article. There is too much information to simply keep in the Wii article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Helady: The fact that they are rumors is not what's being discussed. What we're trying to do here is decide whether the rumors deserve their own articles. Saying that "they're just rumors" is not the way to go. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IGN is a reputable source and has been revealed that Nintendo will supposably unveil their new console at E3. --Victory93 (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too many "supposedly"s. I think it's better to wait till after E3 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the beauty of rumors and speculation. But Wikipedia rules (the Crystal Ball rule) allows for it as I've mentioned three times before. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." MeleeDude (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you fully understand things though. Speculation is indeed allowed by reliable sources, however, that just justifies their inclusion in a given article, not the justification of the article itself. It's justified in inclusion of a notable article, like the article, but it is not justified in establishing an article itself. It's not notable yet, because its ENTIRELY rumors. Not a single thing has been confirmed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't fully understand things. Nowhere in the Wikipedia rules does it say that an article based on pure rumors and speculation cannot have an article of itself. It just needs noteworthy sources, and this article is full of them. So, if you have a new rule that you would like to pitch to Wikipedia, go right ahead and do so. If you don't agree that Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, Kotaku, Ubisoft, Activision, EA, etc., are "reliable, expert sources", and you don't think CNN is a "recognizable entity", then that just sounds like a personal problem. MeleeDude (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, let's be realistic. Look at this discussion. It's virtually a 50/50 split on delete or keep. (I counted 10 to 9.) And there is extensive discussion going on. Do you really think all of this is because of me "pitching new rules" or my "personal problems"? It's obvious there's a little bit more to it than that. Again, I ask you to assume good faith and don't make it personal. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. My recent comments may sound annoyed, due to the amount of comments I've responded to and heladyacross, who was vandalizing the article. I apologize for that. However, I can't stress enough how significant these rumors are considering so many noteworthy sites have covered it. Not to mention Nintendo has just dropped the price of the Wii from $200 to $170. It's rumored that next month it will drop again to $150... and just less than two months away from E3? That is suspicious indeed and seems to add more credibility to these rumors, because the Wii price drop rumor surrounded the successor rumors and now it's confirmed. Nintendo must be playing up something for a big price drop like that. MeleeDude (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not invoke my name as a shield in your ongoing debate. Do not make anymore personal attacks against me and/or character assassination attempts. Thank you. heladyacross (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to. You seem to do a pretty good job yourself of assassinating your character, by vandalizing articles and adding biased information to them. MeleeDude (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're accusing me of adding biased information to a biased article. That's great. I did not vandalize anything. Please stop this. heladyacross (talk)07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can deny all you want, but I wasn't the only one who witnessed your revisions. The article is in no way biased. Almost every sentence in the article has its own source. If there is biased information in the article, please indicate where. MeleeDude (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the the one who is attacking everyone who defends the deletion of this article, and especially the other guy. I don't know why you're so interested in keeping it now, since it'll eventually get back later when news regarding this subject gains more substance, . I'm no Wikipedia contributor myself, as you can see, but watching you degrade this site and attacking people at ramdom just makes me so sick I had to say this. Revert this change, guys, if you want, but this guy just can't wreak havoc like this and stay unnoticed. No "forgetting and forgiving." It seems your username fits what you're here for. 189.18.48.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just a note, everything you just said after "It's rumored that next month..." was speculation, and original research. You can't say "more might be revealed later because of these signs". Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as personal opinions go, I agree, it is suspicious. But as Blake said, as far as wikipedia goes, you can't use original research like that. It's almost comparable to like how a judge can say to a jury "strike that from the record" for legal reasons, or how things can be "off the record" and not used in a case. Similar situation here. A Wii price cut, while personally interesting, is completely irrelevant to the notability of the Project Cafe article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't get me wrong. I was just adding some simple logic to suggest why there is reason to believe a new system launch is coming soon; I wasn't suggesting on backing up the sources in the article with this argument. It's nothing more than some logic I decided to throw into that post. Sorry for the confusion. MeleeDude (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stick Man's rationale, and per my comment above. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Again, speculation may be warranted when by a reliable source, but reliably sourced rumors doe not make a subject notable/justify it's own article. Delete and put any good info into the Wii article in the Successor section. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The IGN source is still an amalgamation of rumors that cannot be substantiated because no official outlets are talking. This is all a crystal ball of unverified information. When/if this project actually materializes the IGN/reputable publisher content might be useful as background info, but it cannot be the backing source justifying an article itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there are good sources covering the article. While many of the reliable sources are just reporting on what unreliable sources said, we can just say it as not fact. While Wikipedia is not news, this is an important topic, and things will be revealed about it a lot through the next two months. Much can be said about it at the moment such as reported features, developers said to have development kits, and general commentary by reliable sources. If you delete it now, it will just have to be remade in a week or two. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be so wrong with just re-writing in a few weeks? It's not like a lot of care or work was put into the article, (The bulk of the rumors started not even a week ago) and the core, more important information would be kept on the current Wii article in the "Successor" section... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would be wrong with keeping it for a few weeks? Kingdom Hearts III is barely confirmed, but it has a lot of reliable sources covering what is confirmed/rumoured about it, and the reaction from reliable sources. I think this kind of article should be allowed. WP:CRYSTAL states that "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." Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think the main difference is "barely". KH3 is atleast addressed by name by the company. No Nintendo rep has ever uttered the words "Project Cafe", as far as I've seen. Also, who's to say we'll know anything more in "a few weeks"? I don't believe Nintendo has any plans for a Press Conference/Release ina few weeks. There's E3, but that's 1.5 months away. Even there, the only indication that they'd mention it there are the same people speculating everything else in the article, not Nintendo themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I moved the page to Project Café. Sorry if this breaks anything in the AfD process. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Solid references that there are rumors is not the same thing as fact about the thing being rumored - and that is what is required here. Wikipedia can afford to wait for this article until something more solid is known - there is no hurry here, we are not a magazine trying to scoop a story - we're here to document truth for generations to come. SteveBaker (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ultimately, all that can be substantiated by the references are rumors. This article should wait for the actual announcement of the product. Safiel (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is full of notable citations. Even if the rumors are wrong, the rumors themselves exist and are notable. When information is officially announced, the article can be changed as necessary. 4368 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So just because the rumors are notable, it means they need an article? Hey, my friend said that GameStop heard from a "Nintendo representative" that Virtual Boy games will be available on the e-Shop. *creates article because the rumors might be wrong, but still exist, and may be notable*--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that most of the sources talking about this are notable, and the prose generated from all of this would be too big for the main Wii article, thus it should be split. If it was only a paragraph or two, it would be fine, but if all of you took the time to actually expand it with the vast amount of sources that aren't in this article, then it would actually not require deletion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, GameStop isn't a news outlet like GameInformer and IGN. So, no, it wouldn't be a good source... but GameInformer and IGN would be. An article, at the very least, needs notability and reliable, third-party sources. MeleeDude (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gamestop owns GameInformer, you know. Dusk Orchestra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, you're correct. But it's actually "GameStop Corportation" that owns both GameInformer magazine and the GameStop retail store (GameStop and GameStop Incorporated are two separate companies). However, the GameStop retail store would not have direct access to sources like GameInformer would (because GameStop is nothing more than just a retail store), but I imagine that there is probably some intermingling going on between the sibling companies. But you would still want to hear it from GameInformer instead of GameStop. MeleeDude (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: until E3/official source confirms. All information can be summarized in the Wii article. I support the notion that it is not up to notability requirements for article creation. On a side note this very much appears to be a "Pet Article" situation with the only real argument against deletion being that it will likely be confirmed at E3. However, Wikipedia can do without it until then; just be patient until after E3. Pikmin 3 is confirmed to be in development by Nintendo, yet it doesn't have it's own article. Explain why this should receive different treatment. ImmortalPeasant (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect There's enough info out there that it warrants a wikipedia article. Or at least redirect it to the Wii article with a section somewhere on the bottom mentioning the console's successor until the next E3 event when Nintendo either confirms or denies the console's development. But I would not delete it outright. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect mostly per User:4368a ("Even if the rumors are wrong, the rumors themselves exist and are notable"). Seeing that the current Project Cafè article is still rather stubby/start-class, I don't mind seeing it as a mere section in the Wii article though. But since the Wii is going to have a successor, and that rather soon, an article about the successor would just temporarily be deleted in the worst case. Not worth the hasssle of an AfD. – sgeureka t•c 08:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whenever there is a rumor Nintendo usually says it's fake, but this time they're not confirming or denying anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.163.106 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources just seem to be repetitive and run in circles, with source Z making a claim, source Y stating "Z said", and X stating "Y said Z said." If the claims are not tracked back to 01.net, they are from the ambiguous "multiple sources" which doesn't say anything. Until source Z is actually Nintendo, delete the article or otherwise rewrite the article so that it isn't listing off every single claim floating around. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't there an investor's briefing on the 25th? That is the same day this afd reaches seven days old, so if nothing gets confirmed there, then delete the article. « ₣M₣ » 05:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting proposal. But I strongly suggest that this article remains until E3, since the sources specifically point to that event for an announcement. Though they say it's possible it'll be announced sooner. MeleeDude (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename. Now this should be renamed to Wii successor or something since the name is not confirmed. 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The Next Generation Portable had an article for at least a month before it was officially announced, when all the information was just rumors but coming from reliable sources (or at least semi-reliable sources), I don't see how this is any different. The Mach Turtle (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to user space for further work - The references run around in circles or are unnamed sources, along with the unreferenced "It is rumoured", "it has been suggested" sections, mean that it has to be deleted or be moved for further work regarding its tone and its basic reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most of it looks like sourced speculation. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Wii#Successor and discontinuation: Looks a bit too speculative currently, no indication that the reliable sources have it right (which is when WP:CRYSTAL would not apply). Prime Blue (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean; CNN, GameInformer, Edge Magazine, and several other reliable sources have confirmed the existence of an HD Nintendo console. I say keep the article, but remove anything that has not been given sufficient confirmation. — Supuhstar * § 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Miyamoto just shortly discussed the rumors, but didn't say whether any were right or wrong, and merely said "please wait". [2] [3]. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They always (Miyamoto, Iwata, etc.) always reply the same thing when questioned about the Wii successor since 2007. They haven't confirmed the rumours. I think the article should be deleted until Nintendo really confirms it. IGN always had a tendency of publishing hoax and blowing them out of porpotions. The only real source are Nintendo themselves and so far nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askinsbob (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • IGN now claims that the next Nintendo console is not called Project Cafe, but "Stream." So much for those previously reliable sources. As for Nintendo, Shigeru Miyamoto said he's seen the rumors and advised people to not believe everything they read. heladyacross (talk)06:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for telling me that, I didn't know! I hate to tell you this, but they said Nintendo is considering "naming" the console Stream. Project Cafe is the "codename" for the system, not the actual name. Not only that, but they backed up all of the console technical specifications released by 01net, and said that the console is indeed more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. To be fair, this is still a rumor, but I certainly like the direction this is heading in. MeleeDude (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for admitting once again that you want this rumor to be true. Shigeru Miyamoto outranks all those multiple unverified sources by a million to one. heladyacross (talk)07:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you not muster up enough humility to admit when you're wrong? Every time I've been wrong about something in this debate or have regretted posting something, I have admitted that I was wrong and/or apologized for it. You have done neither. Furthermore, while I would like the rumors to be true, I don't let any bias effect any contributions I make to the article. It's called professionalism. MeleeDude (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Saying "you like where this is heading" is an admission of bias. You want it to be true. Don't try to deflect that by accusing me of yet another crime. See my edit above. I am done here. heladyacross (talk)08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • All I can say is there is no bias in the Project Cafe article. Also, you don't have to leave; my goal here wasn't to chase you off. This is just a debate, and sometimes things get a little heated. That's all. MeleeDude (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing that prevents Wikipedia from playing host to articles about such content. Even if it was a hoax, it would be a well-referenced one that cites many reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: IGN released a blog post about the Project Café rumors entitled Who Are My Sources?. It only states readers should just trust IGN despite the fact that can't say who the sources are.--ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I read that page earlier. The author of that article (Scott Lowe) said he would love to say who they are, but just couldn't. Let me rephrase an earlier post of mine. The "unverifiable sources" are always going to remain unverifiable. Why is that? Because the only people who would have information on the new console (other than Nintendo employees) are the developers that Nintendo has shown the console to in order to gain 3rd-party support. They don't want Nintendo to know that they've been blabbing about their console because of "disclosure of the invention". They could get in serious trouble for that if Nintendo felt like charging them for intruding the disclosure agreement. Thus, they tell the media (in this case IGN) that they want to remain anonymous. However, it is a good practice for IGN to write an article addressing the concerns that so many readers have on the legitimacy of their information. The very best that they can do is say, "Rest assured; these sources are very reliable." IGN has now done that. MeleeDude (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's great and all for IGN, and makes sense for them to do, but really changes nothing on whether this deserves an article. The fact still remains that they are rumors, not official info verified by Nintendo. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The rumors though are reported by reliable sources, and the sources are commenting on it. This makes the topic notable because of the coverage. Deleting it would be silly. I really think that if you took more of this coverage and put it into a different format, it would have less speculation, and more commentary by reliable sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand what you're saying, but that's not what I'm tlaking about here; I'm just saying that IGN saying "hey guys, come on, just trust us" really doesn't affect anything. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you're correct. But, let's not forget that that is all IGN can say, because their sources are tied by the "disclosure of the invention" agreement. Like I said before, "the only people who would have information on the new console (other than Nintendo employees) are the developers that Nintendo has shown the console to in order to gain 3rd-party support." If IGN were to report who their sources were, their sources would be in serious trouble for intruding the disclosure agreement. If that happened, do you think that those sources would want to reveal any more secret information to IGN in the future? No. In other words, if IGN revealed their sources, it's likely that their sources would never want to report that kind of information to them again (because IGN got them in trouble). The less sources IGN has, the less breaking news stories they have. That's never good for a news outlet. Therefore, IGN reports the secret information they get from their sources, while allowing their sources to remain anonymous. As for the unverifiable sources/information; WP:Crystal makes an exception for notable subjects that have "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities". The Project Cafe article is a notable subject and has both kinds of sources. Also, I apologize for repeating bits of information so much, but I feel it's necessary. MeleeDude (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, no one is arguing about IGN's business tactics, and their business tactics have no bearing on this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just used IGN as an example, this goes for any video game site that reports news like this. Business tactics have the utmost relevance when discussing why sources may be unverifiable. Also, Shigeru Miyamoto just commented on a new Nintendo console being launched soon: [4]. Lastly, I just wanted to point out that if nobody cares that Nintendo On has a page of its own (thanks to Aielyn for bringing that up), then why would anyone claim to care that Project Cafe has an article of its own? So, why does Nintendo On have a page of its own? Is it just because it's not popular at the moment and nobody cares about old news? That article has been posted for years. There are other articles just like this one... so why the double standard? MeleeDude (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that some are confusing notability with their personal opinion on the implications of a console launch. While it is indeed a notable event, it has not occurred yet, and regardless of cryptic PR from Miyamoto, or IGN's faith in their source, much of the information in this article could be condensed and moved back into the subsection of the Wii article. Again, it is a bias to assume that because the theoretical confirmation of a new console would be big news for the "industry" and would be notable when it is actually confirmed by name and specs, does not justify a "preparation" or "countdown" article. The bulk of the article is just a collection of sources that while notable, are bound to second-hand nondisclosure agreements. While that is a reasonable excuse for lack of named sources on their part, it does not warrant that Wikipedia follow in their same vein of scoop journalism. It seems we are making exceptions to the notability guidelines simply because some editors feel a rumor about something they are hopeful for is more important than something that is confirmed but has less of an impact on the industry, IE. a sequel. As far as I can see, only speculation is being sourced here, and the basic points could be summarized within the space a subsection of the Wii article would allow. Piling heaps of sources to big name websites and their personal speculations and unnamed sources is just fluff, really. Dusk Orchestra (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am not implying the news has no place at all of Wikipedia, just that it does not warrant an entire article.Dusk Orchestra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of rumors and speculation floating around, yes, but a lot of reliable resources are confirming the existence of this thing. If something this big exists, we might as well have a page for it. We're not going to delete the page just because it isn't officially announced yet. Might as well keep it around and edit it as necessary. And I think this is about high-time we re-create the Eighth Generation page. It's been long enough. VinLAURiA (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that sources have not been using the term "Eighth Generation". Right now, The 3DS and Wii2 are just really big upgrades in the 7th gen. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh come on. What sources are needed to confirm the whole eighth-gen thing, then? The manufacturers rarely if ever use such terms and it's pretty much clear to everyone that these are eighth-gen systems. Just because no one has explicitly stated it yet doesn't mean we can just ignore it and dance around the issue, pretending these are seventh-gen systems. VinLAURiA (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep IGN is not the only reputable source covering this, in fact, practically all gaming-journalism sites are all over the story. Even Miyamoto hinted at it here  Marlith (Talk)  18:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is pretty much the major subject matter in video game news at the moment and has been reported by pretty much every source that could reasonably be expected to report on it. While any number of details about Cafe may be false, and while there's even the (extremely slim) possibility the console itself is false... the very fact that it's such a major news item is notability enough.--Harlequin212121 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article should be deleted. The only things shown here are rumors and nothing has been actually confirmed. Until at least E3 2011, this article should not exist until "Project Cafe" has been been officially confirmed by Nintendo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's nothing but rumours. I doubt it's authenticity. - Another n00b (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its official http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2011/110425_4e.pdf --sss333 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just announced. http://kotaku.com/#!5795241/nintendo-confirms-wii-successor -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See the official anouncement on the Investor relations site: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2011/110425_4e.pdf It will be shown at the E3 Expo in 2012.--RaviC (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, nintendo has officialy announced the system, and confirms its release date of 2012, as well as confirming that it will be playable at this years E3. The article shoukd be kept, and an Eigth Generation console page should now be made aswell. Technoguy123 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep now I would of said delete but not now as the Wii successor has been confirmed by Nintendo officially.[5] can't really argue with that. I would suggest that this page need some verifiable references but I little reason at all why the page should be deleted now it is confirmed Stevo1000 (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as the system's existence has now been verified by Nintendo themselves. The article obviously needs work, but we now know that this is not a hoax. --Dorsal Axe 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep official and being widely reported in mainstream media. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, the damn thing has been confirmed. And this article should have been created today, not several days ago on rumors. In the future, I really believe we should wait for the official announcement. Safiel (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup If all this rumor is still here by the time we have actual facts to go on, we'll have a very shitty and unreadable article. Nobody wants to read four paragraphs about chattering media and fan speculation before actually getting to read the FACTS. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See? This is exactly why the Wikipedia rules allows for unverifiable information with "reliable, expert sources or recognizable entities" to have an article of its own (of course it also has to be a notable subject). It's in black & white in the Wikipedia rules, and I pointed that out several times. Yet many people kept arguing about this having an article of its own. Please, read the rules with an open mind, people. I made many contributions to this page based solely on what the sources reported, yet many people claimed there was a bias. I made NO biased contributions to this article. The newest reports confirmed that there is indeed a new Nintendo console, which is set for a 2012 release, and it will be unveiled at E3 this June. Hold the phone... wasn't all of that in the Project Cafe article over a week ago? Sorry for gloating, but YES IT WAS! I guess that makes 01net 2:2. So much for unreliable sources. However, I do agree that the article needs work; I never once objected to that. On the contrary, I strongly encourage it. Again, I did the best I could with the contributions I made, but the article is still a little sloppy. Please, anyone who has information from a reliable source; please help cleanup the article. If any of the rumors turn out not to be true, please remove that bit of information with the correct/confirmed information. Note (for any rumors in the article that might later be confirmed to be false): A few incorrect bits of information does not give anyone the grounds to a speedy deletion. Just wanted to point that out. Obviously, I am excited about this, but (again) I NEVER contributed any biased information as other people on this page have claimed. Plus, I'm mostly excited just because this confirms what I've been arguing for so long. Otherwise, this official announcement definitely would not have been a shock to me. Though, we'll probably have to wait until E3 to get anymore details confirmed. MeleeDude (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving to everyone here how immature you are as an editor. It was hinted several times in your inflamatory remarks throughout the discussion. I'm sure everyone here stands by their previous arguments on notability standards. Remember, WP:WIN Dusk Orchestra (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Too early'? It's kinda.. announced, dudes. I see now this was created on Apr 18, but it's announced. It without a doubt exists, and is gonna continue to do so. Time to remove the AFD or what? --Joffeloff (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Project_Cafe&oldid=1265871068"