Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartan (browser)

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. (WP:SNOW) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 13:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan (browser)

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

This topic is, as of know, purely rumor and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Of the three sources mentioned, one is Mary Jo Foley, ZDNet writer whose reputation is not that of full accuracy. The other is Boy Genius Report (BGR) which previously committed forgery in a case related to Blue Screen of Death. (See Blue Screen of Death § Incorrect attribution for details.) As there is the case with all rumors, sources give contradictory details: The Verge says it is going to be a "Windows Store app" while Softpedia says it is going to be a traditional app. (For none-technical people, suffice to say that "Windows Store apps" and "traditional apps" are opposites.) BGR and Softpedia show contradictory screenshots.

Information given in the infobox of this article are totally fabricated. There is not even a source to support them. In fact, "Engines" field of the infobox is refuted by existing (unreliable) sources. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I neither agree nor disagree with the deletion, but I think it shouldn't be deleted until 2 weeks have past to see if there is any relevant info t be found. since Microsoft might reveal this browser on the Jan.21 event, if not then I think it should be deleted.Tony0517 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tony

It is good to know that. Wikipedia's fundamental policy is waiting those two weeks and then writing the article. But on the other hand, an AfD should run for seven days unless closed per WP:SNOW. I think in an ideal rule-based Wikipedia, this article is moved to the draft space or userified to remain on standby until 21 January. Minimum destruction, minimum efforts, no major policy violations are the benefits. But I am not a picky person either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for rumors. Even if more information should be available shortly, it is inappropriate to feature this pure speculation in an encyclopedia. Piboy51 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as reasoned by Codename Lisa. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I completely agree with Lisa, Wikipedia isn't a place of rumors. There must a reference providing official announcement by Microsoft. These two references don't provide exact info. But Microsoft will provide detailed info regarding Windows 10 tomorrow ( 21 Jan 2014 ), if it'll make the announcement, then keep otherwise delete. HPD ^talk 08:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet Explorer. Too early: just wait until Windows 10 comes out. 202.160.36.103 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now confirmed. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per ViperSnake151. --RaviC (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per ViperSnake151. Chmarkine (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not just rumor anymore, it was announced and more information about it will be released in the next few months. Greatedits1 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Confirmed. VirusKA (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was revealed todayTony0517 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was also in the German Tech Press: http://t3n.de/news/project-spartan-microsoft-589745/ --MartinThoma (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: When will people learn to "read & research before nominating for deletions"? Anyhow, this browser has been confirmed on multiple official sources, and since it is very likely that Spartan will gradually replace Internet Explorer after Windows 10, this article should most definitely be kept. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above. All it needs now is a bit of fleshing out. -- Teh Cheezor ^Speak 09:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as explained above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is no longer a WP:CRYSTAL, so it is no longer a prediction, but rather a fact. Other than that, although the listed sources are poor and the article is not of good quality, more reliable news sources are popping up these few days and it is possible to rewrite the article with a huge room for improvement. This is salvageable. With a quick search with Google, it is easy to find at least five reliable sources which all provide sufficient information to put together an article. This is not worth deleting, by all standards. If it is deleted, it would be a massive problem because then Wikipedia will not have an article about the browser to be bundled with Windows 10 and successor to Internet Explorer. We would then be, not predicting a forthcoming event, but becoming seriously out-dated. Given, also, that this topic has generated such debate for keep/delete, there must be quite some traffic going on this article and many would refer to it. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOT confirmed. It's codenamed "Spartan", it's not the name of the browser. We all know the browser is real but the name of it isn't. For all we know it's IE12. Remove totally until Microsoft itself announces it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.14.113 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name doesn't matter. The article can be renamed after its official name is announced. Chmarkine (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internet Explorer: IE is not dead and "Spartan" is basically IE12 without legacy code (more info from the IE team). 89.114.227.105 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided actually says "Internet Explorer will also be available on Windows 10. Internet Explorer will use the same dual rendering engines as Spartan". So Spartan and IE are different browsers. Chmarkine (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Spartan" is still IE, it just doesn't support ancient stuff such as ActiveX, P3P, and document modes. Just because Edge is a new engine, it doesn't mean it's a full new browser, which it isn't. 89.114.227.105 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartan does not supporting legacy features. It uses new engine. It has three new features (i.e. reading mode/reading list, Cortana integration and ability to annotate on webpages). I think these are enough to call it a new browser. Also, actually each version of IE has its own article, like IE 10, IE 11. Chmarkine (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as this may have previously been a rumor, it has been confirmed as real now. I disagree with a merge with IE because this is a separate entity not a new IE version. Ppl seeking info about it will search it via it's current codename, not internet explorer. DeltaDelta5 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the Spartan browser was once just a rumor, it was, as of January 21, 2015, confirmed to exist by Micorsoft. This is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The upcoming Microsoft browser Spartan was showed off at the recent Microsoft and is expected to be in Windows 10. Polloloco51 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In all fairness, this request for deletion should be withdrawn. It might have made sense to delete on January 9. It sure doesn't now. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, getting plenty of coverage, and has been confirmed as the successor of Internet Explorer. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widely announced by MS at https://insider.windows.com/ and elsewhere tompagenet (talk) 09:28, 24 January 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.