Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8

Article likely violates WP:CRYSTAL, and relies on inappropriate sources - one which discuss a different version of Windows and another which is a job advert. As a result, the article is very short, largely unverified and reads somewhat like a job description. Colds7ream (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and old AFD. --G W… 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - As per Nom, WP:CRYSTAL. Or create more articles for 'Windows 9, 10, 11, 12.....' Trevor Marron (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CANWELETTHENEWESTPRODUCTCOMEOUT1ST?JEEBUSW.CHRISTOPHERSON!. There's going to be a Windows 8, but not right now, and certainly it cannot sourced based on the equivalent of a craiglist posting. Nate • (chatter) 10:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculation. References require synthesis. --skew-t (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, this has been deleted before...*groan*Tyrenon (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Windows 7 isn't even out yet for crying out loud, so what's the rush for making an article for its successor already? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all the above and WP:SNOW. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. It doesn't even have a name, for crying out loud. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Windows 7 is still in the testing stage, so I think we can wait for the article on its successor (especially since there's no deadline for WP articles. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of Microsoft Windows - Doesn't need its own article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not relevant now. Windows 8 is the OS from far future! James Michael 1 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. --Даниэла ★ 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing at all is known at this point except that it is under development and that certain features might be under consideration. An entire article created out of just this will not have enough information to justify being called an article. I am sure all the little scraps of information that will keep cropping out till something substantial has been cooked up can be merged in other feature-specific articles or even History of Microsoft Windows. --soum^talk 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reason this article relies upon only one source is because we have only that piece of information about it, and it's a piece of information that's expected and we could probably have put on ALL pages about OSes. Wait for more news/leaks about it, then we'll have something to put here.Ajnauron (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless more information regarding to this OS are provided, it would be more suitable if the article is merged with Microsoft-related article like Microsoft Windows or History of Microsoft Windows. Besides, Windows 7 isn't even released yet, the article may be created when this future OS is announced. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep this article up and update it when more information on the next Windows, after Windows 7 becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.75.17 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous: Keep and expand this page please!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.199.45 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We too would like to keep and expand this. But what are we going to add to it? There is no damn reliable information available! --soum^talk 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment (keep) Well, we currently know at least one source from the references section. There may be other resources about Windows 8 in the internet. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What source? The DFSR job posting? Where does it say that its a Windows 8 feature? Does it anywhere use the name Windows 8 and DFSR in the same sentence? Using it as a source requires a lot of extrapolation on our part, which is as good as making the entire thing up. Unless explicitly stated out by a source as fact, no matter how sure we are about "next version of Windows = Windows 8", its still speculation, and thus crystal balling. Show me one reliable source on the Internet that talks about Windows 8 without resorting to speculations and wish-lists and I will agree with you. --soum^talk 07:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Original version of the job listing: http://www.codenamewindows.com/?p=98 - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I stand corrected. But you got too much drawn into the literal wordings of my comment and missed its point completely. Should have spelled that out explicitly. I wasn't arguing about the legitimacy of the job posting. I was arguing about whether or not just a job posting about a possible feature in a version of Windows that doesn't exist yet and is referred to by something not known to be its working name, code name, final name or just a top-off-the-tongue reference is enough to base an entire article upon? Apparently, from out !votes, it looks like we are on the same boat. --soum^talk 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.