Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (3rd 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 redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. Also full protecting this for a good while, as it has been recreated several times now. NW (Talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:CRYSTAL. Appears to be a recreation of an article deleted twice due to the same reason. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it fits WP:CRYSTAL, and has been deleted twice already. Maybe when we actually hear of Windows 8... Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about this, but is WP:SALT an option? I mean, we may end up with many AfDs for this, but then again, it would be against WP:PILLAR in doing so. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs something done. Over-excited people will rush in and re-create this article continually, I expect. — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. There isn't even a ref. Cargoking talk 09:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Staberinde (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's wait until it's announced. MutantMonkey (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect from recreation - Recreated too many times already. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you search google for windows 8, you will see lots of results talking about it. --Moonwolf14 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Google#Notability. Just because a search term has a lot of hits on Google does not mean it automatically has notability. I think that it may have a lot of hits because some of the tech blogs that I've been reading are speculating about what might be included—speculation alone isn't cause for an article. talking birds 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as unsourced WP:CRYSTAL. Windows 7 was released only a few days ago, for heaven's sake. talking birds 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and salt Windows 7 just came out; WP:CRYSTAL. I'm a Mac but that's immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can the "salting" be done for a limited amount of time, like a few months, in the event the new windows comes out, so someone doesn't have to ask permission to start the article then. Cynof Gavuf 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has next to no content and is just speculation. I'm in agreement with almost everyone else: Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: Delete and salt until some credible information about Win8 is produced.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You call this not credible??? at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL, and serve with salt - I can see this coming up time and again if we don't. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete - if we don't delete this article then we will just keep coming around again in a time loop--Logan (talk)
Delete- There is no official announcement yet.76.102.32.59 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we go ahead and call Snowball? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It is too early to create "Windows 8" article. Maybe move the portion of the article to History of Windows or something else. -- BWCNY (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have voted delete if Windows 7 hadn't already been released, but now that it has, Microsoft should have Windows 8 in development so that some info can be found. Georgia guy (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice: it is too soon for Windows 8 to have its own article, as many above have noted. It can be brought back once there is an official announcement from Microsoft or something of the like, at least some information on development. Until then, salt sounds like a good idea due to the likelihood of re-creation before that time. Cliff smith ^talk 17:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further thinking, redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8 and protect the redirect until there's enough information for a separate article. This is somewhat analogous to a new album from a musician or a new film in a franchise—keep it at the main page until it can be properly spun off. Cliff smith ^talk 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Existing content is way too small and speculative. --Natural R_X 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. Please don't salt this redirect. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. There will invariably be more verifiable info, just not enough to warrant an article yet. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep~~, maybe Redirect~~ This article has few facts, however, it tells us a little about what is expected in Windows 8. Do not salt. It will create a headache to recreate it when Bill Gates organizes a press conference. EDIT: see [1]. It has some info that could be added. A google search brings up some websites with valuable information. at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, this isn't really a situation where a speedy keep could happen. Cliff smith ^talk 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. However, I would oppose salting for more than six months. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Agree with above commenter that it shouldn't be salted for more than a few months. --Resplendent (talk)

Delete It is not the time for this article. I think that this article should be create no sooner than will be enough information about Windows 8. Perhaps it will be in 2010 or 2011... Live is here today! James Michael 1 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Let it be recreated when there is an official confirmation of developement. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a reader, the launch of Windows 7 led me to reading articles about Windows' history and this led me to look at Windows 8 to see what was known as yet. Even if the answer to that is "little", that in itself is information for the reader. It's logical for users to look for that article, increasingly so over time, so it is as easy to keep it tidy as to keep it deleted. Andy Farrell (talk) 00:00, 29 October 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.