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 No Consensus. Pigman☿ 03:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vaporware[edit]

List of vaporware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic listcruft, original research, and unverifiable. Current entries are based on the opinions of arbitrary editors who happen to edit the article. I don't think this list could ever work, because the entries need more context for why they are particularly notable for being on a vaporware list, and also to cover the other side of the debate per WP:NPOV. If this were satisfied, it simply wouldn't be a list anymore. The list format only encourages users to add uncited, unsubstantiated and unimportant entries. -- intgr [talk] 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no clear way of deciding whether a product is "vaporware", even if we define the term based purely on development times. Other connotations of the word – Wikipedia's vaporware article states that "[t]he term implies unwarranted optimism, or sometimes even deception" – make it even more subjective. And because the term is loosely-defined and subjective, even a media reference to a product as "vaporware" needn't mean any more than that the author wanted to complain about it. EALacey 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They simply get moved into the "late arriving" column if they come out. All they need is a reference in the press describing them as "vaporware" for verifiability. Truth isn't a Wikipedia pillar. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  However, neutrality is. -- intgr [talk] 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These is a notable list, per previous keep comment Doc Strange 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This entry is speculative, subjective, unclear. Game media is mostly amateurish, there is never any lack of guided speculation about this game or that one as being Vaporware. What's worse is that corporate shills will often try to establish a competing upcoming title as vaporware. Wikipedia at the very least should strive to maintain neutrality and not be used as a tool in commercial unfair competition practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.88.5 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Doc Strange. Rray 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps sources have been added after it was nominated, but it doesn't appear to be OR or unverifiable now. It's a good illustration of what vaporware is. Mandsford 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above keeps Think outside the box 12:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strange mix of marketing promises, renamed projects, vague plans made by individuals and really failed projects, without context and out of proportion to the real world problems (games are nothing compared to disastrous business projects). Perl 6 is not yet dead, Arc was just someone's vision and never firmly promised etc. etc. If kept only notable SW failures documented in specialized magazines or books should be included. Fans webpages and gossip rags are not encyclopedical source here. The article title is definitely misleading. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - merge (then redirect this page) relevant entries into Vaporware. --Philip Laurence (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is notable, and of historic sgnifcance. Kingturtle (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pour into Category and Delete—My opinion runs closest to that of User:87.203.88.5 in that the description "vaporware" is usually used either with the intention to malign a competitor's or vendor's product or informally within a development group to express dismay at promised deliverables that have not materialized. As such, it is a loaded word. However, I do agree that Truth is not a WikiPillar ... and I also agree that Neutrality is. By establishing this list as an article, we re-inforce POV statements via press release or blog entry through the mirror-and-remirror propagation of Wikipedia content throughout the Internet. Categories are not subject to such a potent mirroring effect, and reporting of the vaporware label to a product can be addressed in context of the article about the product (or company producing it) so as to mitigate potential for POV content; abstraction of that content out of the context of the articles where it belongs unduly supports the POV effect of the attribution. Wouldn't a category do the same thing? It could, but to a lesser degree; furhter, such category should probably not be called Category:Vaporware (as it currently is); rather I'd suggest something like Category:Software described as Vaporware, which is a more accurate statement of the reportable fact. If one wanted, one could have either a sub or sib category Category:Software formerly described as Vaporware, but I don't think that would be necessary. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 24 November 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.