- 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 withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nexus 5X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Product has not been announced, so can not possibly be referenced to reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination - product has now been announced and reliable sources are now available. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral/Weak Delete - There does appear to be reliable sources available for this topic even though it's an unannounced product, but the article is entirely unsourced. We wouldn't lose much by deleting it. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Should there be a 1:1 mapping between a product having an entry in Wikipedia and it having been officially announced in a press release? Where do we draw the line between what's officially announced and what isn't? This product has been widely trailed, and it would seem particularly pointless to go to the trouble of deleting the entry about it three days before the event at which it will probably be announced. Why not just modify the opening sentence to say "...is a rumored upcoming..."? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL, point 5: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, but my question was about where we draw the line. What if a Google exec accidentally let slip that a phone like this would be launched next week? What if he or she even used the term "Nexus 5X", but Google's press office then issued a statement along the lines of "You'll have to wait and see what we announce"? Is the Nexus 5X at that point still speculation/rumour, or is it not? We've all seen the debates around whether Wikipedia articles on Apple products should match Apple's preferred capitalization, and the conclusion seems to be that normal English language conventions should prevail, not what Apple's marketing department wants people to use. The situation here is clearly a different one, but might it not also be the case here that Wikipedia should prefer what is common currency in the public domain, not what the official line from Google PR is? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even informal comments from insiders can't be relied on, as plans can easily be changed. They could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, depending on how authoritative and detailed the "announcement" is. An official launch event is certainly authoritative and detailed enough. I can't see how that applies here though. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my mistake, sorry. It's now O (org/corp/product). Or should it be T (science/tech)? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Either one seems fine. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now I suppose as although there are News and browser links about this, there's simply nothing to suggest a better article and would be best mentioned elsewhere until said better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (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.