Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum Next (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

ZX Spectrum Next

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum Next
• Articles for deletion/ZX Spectrum Next (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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.

The only citations that can be used to support this topic are for the release of the machine itself, and the specifications of the machine which are primary sources.

There continues to be no "significant coverage" since the last time this page was deleted and it is remains extremely unlikely that mainstream sources will be covering the machine again in the future.

There is no reason why this machine requires a dedicated page when all the possible information about it is included in 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)

• oppose/keep The ZX Spectrum Next is not a clone of the 1980s' ZX Spectrum. It is a distinct product, more accurately described as a platform for recreating (and not just emulating) a growing number of older computer systems. It achieves this through FPGA, and is arguably the first, or at least most, consumer-friendly FPGA-based product.

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)

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)

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)

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)

The quality of the product isn't in dispute. MrMajors (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Then find a citation to support this "distinctive consumer-friendliness" and add it to the article. MrMajors (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I have significantly edited the article, and removed most of the complexity and the promotional language, as well as the primary sources. I had no difficulty finding substantial coverage in reputable independent sources. Notability is clearly established by the references I added, such as Electronics Weekly, Metro (UK), PC Pro Magazine (UK), and MagPi Magazine. Indeed the product has been reviewed post-launch in several of those mainstream titles. When searching I also noticed significant coverage in non-English-language reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep. This is not a ZX Spectrum clone, but a new system which is backward compatible with the ZX Spectrum. Acceptance of this status by the wider ZX community can be seen by other FPGA based systems striving and advertising Next compatibility. Thus, it is not comparable to clones which do not have (or need) a separate page. SRG275 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The article grew substantially in the last days, using cited materials. It's comparable in length, style, citations and information to an average article on Wikipedia. If there is a page on ZX Spectrum Vega+ than this alone is a reason to keep the article for the Next. Mitja i (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)