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. pure speculation L Faraone 02:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IWatch[edit]

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

All this article is is crystal ball Chris Ssk _talk 13:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple Inc. - a short section about the speculation is probably valid there (basically, whatever the reliable sources stated about the leak, and none of the speculation); there is no way this product is yet notable though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has (at least) four full length articles written about it (not just mention in a larger article), publications including The Telegraph, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. If this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources I don't know what is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see point 5 of WP:BALL, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Chris Ssk _talk 14:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not become Apple's handmaid and delete everything that hasn't got their stamp of approval. Rules, even WP rules, can be interpreted rigidly, or sensibly. I would consider keeping this article as "sensible". The whole hubub around the watch is notable on its own, moreso than many thousands of articles on minor subjects that are perfectly validly on Wikipedia as well. Deleting it may well fit the letter of the rule - but not the spirit of Wikipedia as a place where you go to look up things, in my opinion. Ingolfson (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 5 of WP:BALL also states While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. The article is about a newly revealed product, and is not simply a product announcement, there is encyclopedic verifiable information within the article, it is not entirely speculation (while there is speculation on what it will look like). I contend that this is a notable product in development, and see no reason to merge it into an already very large article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Apple Inc.. This page is based on anonymous leaks, agreeing with the nominator here. J04n(talk page) 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but speculation and rumour from tech journalists at this point. If and when something substantial enters the public domain, then perhaps the article can be revisited. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 31 March 2013 (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.