Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of Windows 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Development_of_Windows_8

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. WP:CRYSTAL The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Windows 8

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

Unverifiable information. I don't consider the references given to be reliable sources, and the majority of the information presented is speculation or hearsay. I'm not saying there won't be a Windows 8 -- there probably will be (though potentially with a different name). But we simply don't have enough information right now to make a reasonable article out of it. This is precisely what WP:CRYSTAL talks about. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation sourced to unreliable blogs and the usual internet gossip forums does not make for an encylopaedic article. A redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8 may be appropriate, but they is entirely insufficient reliable information at this stage for a standalone article. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly per Shirik. 123 Hedgehog 456 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Merge into History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8 until the software itself is released per the three good editors above and SNOW. Wiki cop ter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merge and Delete is not an acceptable deletion outcome per WP:MAD. (Edit histories for content must be retained.)

There would be no content to merge anyway after removing everything (rumours and speculation) that can only be sourced to unreliable blogs and forums, so that is not really an issue. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:27, 22 February 2011 (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.