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. Per consensus, sufficent reliable source material exists for the topic. Even if the topic is about speculation, hoaxes, fantasy, fiction, etc, it still may be attributable and the rough consensus agreed that this topic could be attributable. Jreferee t/c 15:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there was a prior AfD not mentioned in this AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Phone. -- Jreferee t/c 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPhone[edit]

This is a speculative piece of fiction, with references based on a number of blogs, synthesizing a few random facts together to project a piece of technology that may or may not ever come to pass. Fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete. Neil ム 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The brave effort to make it at least look like an encyclopedia article is cancelled out by the content being, per nom, speculative fiction. Chris Cunningham 09:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it. While speculation itself is sourced, it is still just a speculation. However, given a high visibility of the gPhone/Google, there will very probably be a lot of people looking information about gPhone. So, until gPhone is confirmed, we should have a stub along the lines "gPhone is the alleged name for Google smartphone, of which there are only rumors." Then few "See also" links to notable sites that have information or commented on it (The Inquirer, Wall Street Journal, Engadget) and protect the article for now, so it would not become a spam/blog promotion magnet. IMHO, that would be overall best solution. -- Sander Säde 09:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google#Applications already has mention of a possible gPhone, which should be sufficient until the product is officially announced and/or released. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup - A Google Phone has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources worldwide [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Don't see how WP:SYNTH applies, WP:RS exist, not WP:OR since there are multiple sources, while WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball only applies to unverifiable speculation. See WP:RUBBISH -Halo 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look through most of those links - they all pretty much say the same thing - some people from Google have been in talks with people from phone networks, probably about a Google-branded phone, and then some hand-waving about the iPhone. There's nothing actually about the gPhone itself. Everything verifiable at the moment would fit better in the main Google article. Neil ム 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As much as I would like to take the eventualist approach toward this article, there is really nothing worthy keeping beyond the fluffy hype and hand waving. Burntsauce 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Halo. IMO, notability of future products can be established by how strong the expectations of them (on the market etc) are. If those expectations (not the product) and their strength can be proved by reliable sources, then the article may exist. We can merge into Google or redirect it also. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)
Delete without prejudice to recreation when announced. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Halo --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To me the main criterion for justifying the existence of speculative articles like this one is that the article should have a reason to exist even if the product in question never materializes, and I think that Google's phone meets that criterion. Jun-Dai 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for above Just asking for some clarity on your statement. It sounds like you're trying to justify the existence of the article even if the product is never released? Off subject, has anyone looked at the edit history for this article? It's a spam-magnet, 100% speculative. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that at least four people have seen the edit history, yes. Chris Cunningham 10:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is not the point for deletion. Remove all the spammers, not the article - they are the root of the problem here. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 06:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)

My argument is that there is no information other than the spam. Delete the spam and speculation and you have no article. We know absolutely nothing at this point other than that Google is considering. There are no hardware specs, the operating system details are vague at best ("a Linux based OS"), no carrier information (3G, GSM, CDMA?), etc... Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article thoroughly, please. The WSJ specs a more or less sharp - 3G is mentioned, GPS, etc. There are other views presented also, like Phoronix/OpenMoko (indirect linking to QT/Greenphone). --Yuriy Lapitskiy 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC))(i signed, no need for Template:Unsigned, thank you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Google#Applications per User:Yngvarr. Rami R 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rumors are just rumors. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 19:46, 4 October 2007 (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.