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. Tone 13:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum Next[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

ZX Spectrum Next (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)

The ZX Spectrum Next is a kickstarter-funded modern clone of the ZX Spectrum. Only around 3000 units have been produced so far. As such, it is an extremely niche product. Unlike the original Vega or Spectrum Vega+, this product is not marketed at the general public seeking nostalgia, nor does it have the involvement of Sinclair Research.

As a crowdfunded product, the only reliable third party coverage of the machine has been for the initial launch of the project and the delivery and reviews of the final product. It is extremely unlikely that mainstream sources will be covering the machine again in the future.

Most of the article consists of meaningless jargon and technical specifications, some of it repeated which makes the article appear to be larger than the actual content.

A product being successfully crowdfunded and delivered is not in itself notable.

There is no reason why this machine requires a dedicated page when all the valuable information about it is included in the relevant section of the ZX Spectrum page. The page has been nominated for speedy deletion several times since it's recreation. MrMajors (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(update: a new kickstarter is being launched to fund a second production run of these machines: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spectrumnext/zx-spectrum-next-issue-2 MrMajors (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC) )[reply]


I don't believe that the number of instances of something which exist is a criteria for its notability. For example, there is only one Eiffel Tower, only fifty States of america.
As such I believe that it is notable and does not warrant coverage as part of the ZX Spectrum page, being a distinct (albeit related) product consequently having far more distinct information than can "fit" into another product's page.
The page, like the ZX Spectrum Next itself, is relatively new and still developing towards the level of quality we've come to expect from Wikipedia; perhaps authors should've used the Wikpedia:Draft namespace until it was more mature, but I don't think deletion is an appropriate response to such an oversight. --DuncanCorps (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of "distinct information" is inflated by repeating the same technical specifications in the 'Models' section, the 'Hardware Specifications' and in the infobox at the side. Without this unnecessary jargon, the remaining information would fit into a single paragraph on the ZX Spectrum page. MrMajors (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first FPGA-based project. The ZX Uno project is another ZX Spectrum based FPGA device, but doesn't have it's own article. Neither do the MiST and MiSTer FPGA projects, which are more generic devices that can "recreate older computer systems". In fact, it's the "cores" (small programs that configure the FPGA to run as a particular system) developed for the MiST and Uno which are used by the Spectrum Next so calling it "distinct" is absurd - it's an FPGA device with a custom keyboard, not a "modern 8-bit home computer" as the article claims. MrMajors (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a big misunderstanding of this particular device. It is true that the Next can run other FPGA cores, but the main purpose is to be the hardware which runs the Spectrum Next's own operating system NextZXOS. NextZXOS is open source, so it is also true that it can run on other FPGA devices. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the whole package here - the hardware, the software and not least the very extensive and substantial manual - is intended to be highly reminiscent of the 8-bit computers of the 1980s, allowing anybody to take it out of the box and start playing games (old or new), or start programming. The other devices mentioned above are not the same thing, targeted more at the emulation scene.--Bryces (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the product isn't in dispute. MrMajors (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This very eloquently describes the consumer-friendliness of ZX Spectrum Next which makes it distinct from other FPGA devices, and also clarifies what its primary purpose and secondary applications are. --DuncanCorps (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here, MrMajors points out ways in which ZX Spectrum Next is a distinct product from ZX Spectrum, seemingly refuting his own argument, not least because those differences would indeed be a great deal of information which has not yet been added to the page. I'd like to also emphasise that my point was the distinctive consumer-friendliness not unqualified "firstness". --DuncanCorps (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then find a citation to support this "distinctive consumer-friendliness" and add it to the article. MrMajors (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "distinctive consumer-friendliness" is described quite clearly in the cited PC Pro article. SRG275 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRV: "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity": those references are clearly "short-term interest" as they are reviews of the machine sent out to reviewers around the time of the product's release ("promotional activity"). There is no likelihood of further broad coverage. MrMajors (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite obvious that this is not actually the case. For example, the MagPi articles are four months apart, in-depth, cover completely different material, and are by two separate journalists. The PC Pro article was a followup to an original review from two years earlier. Retro Gamer has been covering the topic since 2016. This isn't "short term interest", and nor is it the kind of "journalism by reprinted press release" WP:NRV is talking about. Thparkth (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite obvious that the earlier coverage was for the launch of the kickstarter and that the later coverage was for the delivery. There won't be any further broad coverage. MrMajors (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much like to have MrMajors's precogniscence regarding coverage of personal computers. People still talk about ZX Spectrum nearly four decades after its launch, it's entirely possible that ZX Spectrum Next will continue to receive coverage as its potential is explored by the "retro computing" community, and geeks of all flavours across the world. --DuncanCorps (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't create articles for things in the hope they might become notable in the future. MrMajors (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ZX Spectrum Next is already being shown to be notable now; I thought your point was that it would cease to be notable, not that it has yet to become notable? IMHO, from past experience, we can't reliably predict that something will cease to be notable. --DuncanCorps (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not shown to be notable now. Notability does not come from simply having been created. MrMajors (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like we're focusing on coverage as a way to judge notability. How much current coverage is required in order for something to be proven notable? How does the level of current coverage of ZX Spectrum Next compare with, say, The Prisoner which still has a page which isn't under threat of deletion? I think I need to read an official Wikipedia definition of notable. --DuncanCorps (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant guidelines are WP:N and WP:RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the Next is clearly notable. It was covered by print publications (PC Pro) and major websites (msn.com, theinquirer.net, theregister.com) over a period of more than four years. SRG275 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only because it took 4 years to deliver due it being a crowdfunded product. Taking a long time to deliver a product does not make it notable. This article was first deleted four months ago - none of the websites you mention were cited in the article then, nor are they in the current one. MrMajors (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks are due to MrMajors for pointing out some more sources to cite. --DuncanCorps (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you will read WP:N, specifically WP:CONTN, you will see that the content of the article is not relevant to notability. The websites exist, and discuss the Next (and are cited in the Czech language version of the article), so the Next is notable. The article is deficient and needs improvements, but that is not a reason for deletion. SRG275 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simply adding more citations that support the same thing - that the Next was crowdfunded and delivered - cannot improve the article. Wikipedia is not a catalogue - it doesn't have an article for every product that has been created and reviewed in a magazine. MrMajors (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call it a clone or a new system is not relevant to it's notability. MrMajors (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you use the fact that FPGA clones like UNO or MiST do not have a page to claim that the Next should not have a page, a difference between those systems and the Next is very relevant to the discussion. SRG275 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Uno was funded and delivered by crowdfunding and reviewed in a few niche publications. It is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. The same applies to the Spectrum Next. MrMajors (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out earlier, the length of the article is artificially inflated by the repeating the technical specs several times. The Vega+ is notable for the fact it failed and led to court cases and was covered by mainstream media. MrMajors (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can increase the notability of ZX Spectrum Next by detailing how delivery of some models was delayed from original estimated dates and why? Not as dramatic as ZX Spectrum Vega+ (or ZX Spectrum Vega) but still sort-of trouble in the project... --DuncanCorps (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's way too much bickering about how different this product is, and way too little analysis of the sources that have been provided here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has its own defintion of notability (WP:N). In short, article subject needs broad enough coverage in multiple reliable sources (again by own Wikipedia definition WP:RS; major news media, published magazines or peer reviewed papers may work). As there is no delete "vote" other than that one by the nominator, this discussion could be closed at worst (from your POV) as a no consensus (which defaults to keep). Sure, most of the keep "votes" (but not all) here are somewhat close to "I like it" and would be probably discounted by the closing editor, but at least some offer policy based rationale centering on the quality of sources. However, it doesn´t matter how strong or weak these arguments are, at this point, there certainly is not a consensus to delete this article. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being "a notable machine at this time" is exactly the problem with the article. Coverage needs to be WP:SUSTAINED and needs to satisfy the policies of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. MrMajors (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's had press coverage since 2016. I don't think you will obtain a consensus for your position on this. Thparkth (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Short term press coverage is not enough in itself. None of the sources show why the Spectrum Next is notable, they only confirm it exists. MrMajors (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking (and according to the WP:GNG), significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what makes a subject notable. Thparkth (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...and from WP:NRV "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" and " evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". MrMajors (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do sympathise with this position, but honestly, there's a second kickstarter campaign happening right now. In my experience it is a collossal waste of time to try to XfD subjects which are literally currently in the public eye. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what kind of mentions and articles would in MrMarjors opinion make something notable enough to be included and not merely confirm that it exists? Could you perhaps ellaborate on that a little bit? The way I see it 1) There is a sizeable public interest in the machine (as confirmed by the news sources and funding campaigns). 2) The machine has been covered (at least to some extent) in several 3rd party sources since 2016. These third party sources include the BBC and CNN. 3) Specialist magazines have internationally covered the machine in detail. At the moment this isn't very visible in the article to be honest. 4) The machine is a continuum of the Sinclair ZX Spectrum series, and I don't think anyone would contest the notability of ZX Spectrum. Next includes a number of enhancements made to original ZX Spectrum along the years and is fully compatible with original ZX Spectrum hardware extensions and peripherals. It is in every way currently possible a ZX Spectrum with 40 years of development on the original platform. I will give you that the article could indeed be part of ZX Spectrum article, but the fact is that it differs from the original ZX Spectrum to such an extent that including Next in the article would make the ZX Spectrum article grow way beyond its scope. 5) As for what comes to sustained attention is, like I said earlier, anyones guess. Then again Does ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64 or Amiga at the moment have sustained attention in the mainstream media? Or in fact did they ever? I don't remember that being the case in the '80s and '90s, the media field was very different back then. I find this requirement potentially somewhat problematic in many cases. 81.175.155.7 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can´t speak for the other platforms, but there is still some coverage of Amiga in "mainstream" media (eg Ars Technica). Be it some a piece about history of computing, or articles about several attempts for rebirth (eg. AmigaOne). Although all experienced Wikipedia editors will say notability is not inherited, both AmigaOne and ZX Spectrum Next are interesting to the outside of their own communities only because of this heritage (unlike eg. Raspberry Pi, which achieved notability on its own). As of mainstream media coverage in the 80s and early 90s, these platforms were "mainstream", so their dedicated press is sufficient for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That notability is not automatically inherited does not mean that anything which is derived from something else is inherently non-notable. With regards to popularity, note that the general market for microcomputers has exploded in the last two decades: the Raspberry Pi for instance has already sold more than six times the total number of units the Amiga ever did despite being in a far smaller niche relative to the rest of the computing market. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this for me. I would argue that both AmigaOne and ZX Spectrum Next are actually interesting also within their communities only because of their heritage. It's the same for all of the "retro revival" scene. The heritage is precicely the "thing" here :D 81.175.155.7 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2020 (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.
More