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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Xbox console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article was redirected to Xbox per violation of WP:CRYSTAL as it is speculation and rumor. Indeed there was nothing much mentioned at CES. The name Xbox 720 is also just a speculative name dreamed up by people in the community and not even conformed by Microsoft so it cannot even be said to be a legitimate working title. User:Ryulong reverted it claiming there was enough info out there and that the name was a legitimate use and says it is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL. As one of the authors of the last point in CRYSTAL, it was my intent to specifically cover stuff like this and we chose the wording to help make it so it would cover things like these kind of rumors and speculations. ∞陣内Jinnai 16:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While creating the AfD, the page was moved.∞陣内Jinnai

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No argument advanced for deletion, and a merge discussion is ongoing at Talk:Upcoming Xbox console since January 10 (though the article was called Xbox 720 at that moment) — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • So you're saying violations of WP:NOT aren't grounds for deletion? Interesting theory.∞陣内Jinnai 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Violations of WP:NOT may lead to a variety of outcomes. By your own rationale, a redirect to Xbox was an appropriate outcome for this particular case. That redirect was reverted, and the matter is now being discussed elsewhere (standard WP:BRD). So, is there any reason why the content should be deleted, as opposed to merged and/or redirected? — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you want a speedy close of an AfD on something that appears to violate CRYSTAL. Opposing it is one thing, requesting a speedy closure is another. It was redirected because all of the content violates WP:CRYSTAL: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Now, are you invoking WP:IAR and saying this case is special somehow? If so, then explain your rationale.∞陣内Jinnai 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is concerned with the form of the AfD and not at all with the content. Unless it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, that an article violates a policy or guideline does not automatically imply that it should be kept or deleted, only that we discuss it, given that editors normally disagree on whether there is such violation. Of the possible outcomes, merging/redirecting is already being discussed (per WP:CRYSTAL, actually) so it would be really inappropriate for us to discuss it here. The only reason to carry on with the AfD at this point would be if deletion of the article history was also necessary — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same rational as the AFD I created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox TEN, which was essentially the same article but with a different media-speculation name. -- ferret (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would further request any new article that starts with Xbox (and this article) be salted until such time as there is more evidence. These will likely come up again and again and there is a history to support the recreation of these kinds of articles.∞陣内Jinnai 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Xbox 360#Successor & salt - As per WP:CRYSTAL and the two previous AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox TEN & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 720.) Salvidrim! 22:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not forgetting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 3... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is worth mentioning that the articles discussed in these deletion debates were substantially less-sourced than the current version. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is still a product annoucement with most of the info being based on speculation and rumor and the rest on only tangental info that could still change.∞陣内Jinnai 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created this article under the impression that the topic meets GNG. Even though the product has not been officially announced, it has generated significant and reliable coverage. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it seems that even if this product was never released, there exists plenty enough coverage to justify an article. However, I understand that this reasoning may not be widely held. Regardless, tidings all! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Xbox 360, since this article is speculative and there is no concrete evidence to warrant its existence at this point. The news articles, as reliable as the sources are, are based around speculation and rumors, as well. An alternative, however, would be to create a page for the Xbox series, with a section to re-direct to there for the time being. DarthBotto _talk•cont 05:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since the current name, "Upcoming Xbox console" is a reasonable redirect term, if the article is deleted, the title should redirect to the successor section of the Xbox 360 article. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per the same reasons the past ones were deleted. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON, etc. Merge any speculation by reliable sources to a "successor section" in the 360 article, and salt this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per discussion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no reliable information available about this console because Microsoft has not made any comments at all about it. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." - [WP:CRYSTAL] clearly this is just speculation and rumour, no matter what the sources are. Millermk90 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is nothing but vague speculation and therefore violates policy. A redirect would not be helpful. At some point, Microsoft will announce its next console and a proper page can be set up. Until then, any speculation can go on existing pages related to Microsoft's console business. Indrian (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It might not be the best idea to have both this AfD and a RM running concurrently about the same article. Salvidrim! 20:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not clear what has changed about this page since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 720, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox TEN (other than the title). Without official confirmation of this product, there is ample precedent for deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yesterday, IGN (a reliable source) had two articles regarding the next Xbox, based on rumours of it, here and here, saying it'll be six times more powerful than the 360 and that it'll be released in October or November 2013; but making an article based on rumours can be very difficult as it can have contradicting sources, because there was a source that said that the 720 and PS4 will both be announced in E3 2012, while another saying that it won't-SCB '92 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's why CRYSTAL exists. Yes, there are exceptions, but they generally have substantial history of commentary behind them going back usually a decade or more.∞陣内Jinnai 18:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly against WP:CRYSTAL. Also, delete as per previous precedents (see Osubuckeyeguy above). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:29, 26 January 2012 (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.