Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus keyboard

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Optimus keyboard

Vote: Keep: It's a very interesting product that appears to be genuine and in production/development. The article is discussing a new technology that could benefit a lot of computer users, thus it has encyclopediac integrity and merit. Richardbooth 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement. The article is nothing but an ad for a product that doesn't even exist yet. As for the novelty value of the described product, keyboards with programmable LCD keytops were already available many (15?) years ago. Naddy 11:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: keep.

Artemy Lebedev studio may have not well been known outside of Russia, but it is a very solid manufacturer. I genuinely do not believe that the studio would publish an article on something they did not actually work on. I think the "vaporware" claims, at least as far as accusations of publicity frauds, are not justified.

As for the argument that it is a prototype, I have seen hundreds of entries in Wikipedia about concept ideas by other companies, including car manufacturers like GM or Ford, or not-yet-released software, including those who already HAVE proved themselves vaporware (ahem Duke Nukem Forever. Why don't we go and delete that?

I think the article should be given a chance. It perhaps should be modified, more directly emphasizing the fact that no physical keyboard exists, and/or warn about dangers of vaporware. But simply deleting an interesting article about an informative concept design is displaying bias and triggerhappyness. (Elvarg 18:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: delete. It is only an artist's concept, and only vaporware. It should not be even mentioned as a 'product' or 'prototype', because it does not exist in physical form. If it is kept, it should be in a "Future Keyboard Artist's Concepts" section.

Vote: keep. This product very innovative, good idea, and current "event". Maybe vaporvare, but I don't think so.

Vote: keep: If it is in advertising style, let's change it. It's an interesting idea (albeit not entirely new), and the article gave useful information (for example: I didn't realise the pictures were cg renderings). The article on coca-cola isn't considered an advert, and other future devices exist on WP, so lets keep this interesting technology page, albeit tweaked a little for encyc. style. Mat-C 11:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — JIP | Talk 11:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per everyone else. If the advertising tone is removed, this article will be quite useful about a new kind of keyboard. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: keep: Definetly an interesting idea and could be expanded to include examples of similar keyboards from the past. --81.154.237.252 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: keep: This is arguably an advertisement, but could easily be edited to broaden its scope. The advertisement is continued in a number of places on Wikipedia, including two mentions to itself on the Computer Keyboard page (an image and a link at the bottom), so these should perhaps be removed. If this is to be deleted, it should be replaced with a broader article on similar keyboards. RandyWang 23:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: keep: i added the "future product" comment, that should make it clear that we rely mainly on company information Hppl 12:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Delete: What is the point of this article? It doesn't seem apropriate to have an article about a single product (not a broader technology) that doesn't exist yet, and therefore has not historical or cultural importance. While I agree that this could be of technological interest, if that is the point of this article, then a broader article about the technology itself, not an individual product would be the right way to go.

• • unsigned edit by Laurajacob (talk • contribs)

Vote: Keep: No cultural relevance? So I guess numerous promised products that never came to fruition, or even those that did, had no affect on culture before they were released? This is incorrect. Think of numerous gaming systems, software titles, etc. Think of computer designs and concepts which had an impact on society even if they never were produced successfully.

• • unsigned edit by 168.28.52.89 (talk • contribs)

Vote: Major change: Include references to any other programmable keytop keyboards. Vaxalon 13:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• • don't vote for it, do it!

• Keep, notable product which has already been the subject of a fair bit of discussion elsewhere jamesgibbon 13:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: but rewrite the article so that it has more information on this particular type of keyboard rather than focusing so much on this particular make and model. As Optimus is the brand name might it require renaming the article? --Timmywimmy 13:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete

Advertisement for vaporware. Does Duke Nukem Forever have a page? How about Windows Vista?

Yes, Duke Nukem Forever does have an entry. As does Windows Vista.

• • unsigned edit by 65.78.15.101 (talk • contribs)

• Keep: Google test (with quotes) returns 277,000 hits. Seems like an interesting concept, though I agree it should be expanded to encompass all keyboards of its type, if others exist. And for the record, Duke Nukem Forever and Windows Vista both have pages, yes. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Per everyone else — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Agree with previous Delete voters. If the article was about OLED keyboards in general, and included this product as an example, that would be different. This is just an advert. Delete it. Elwood00

• Keep but edit so it doesn't sound like an advert. Ppe42 13:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Vaporware (see Adambisset's Patented Perpetual Motion Machine for a similar example ;). Merge with the article on computer keyboards if necessary, under the heading of 'future developments' perhaps. (I notice that Mr Lebedev already has a picture of his product on that page). [BTW 'Google testing' gives special privilege to certain subjects. It is an invalid method for determining the content of an encyclopedia. Think about it the other way round: if a subject has millions of Google hits does the world really need another page about it?] Adambisset 13:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: The images on the home page for this are nothing but renders and Photoshop jobs. This does not exist, will likely not exist any time soon, and even if it does come to exist, this page is little but an advertisement for it. If this page persists, should I go create pages for all my company's products? N0YKG 13:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, a product catalogue nor an advertising medium. If it's ever a real product, if it gets a manufacturer, if it ships in 2006, if anyone buys it, if any of the other nebulous predictions in the article come to pass, then it deserves an article. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Perhaps change the entry to the subject of LED keyboards in general, have the Optimus as a section in that article, and redirect Optimus searches to that article. I hate it when I know something exists and Wikipedia has no information on it at all. If something exists, even if only in the form of a publicly accessible concept, Wikipedia should have info on it if possible.

Nortonew 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: This is a mere product placement article. If there are any such keyboards around, it is sufficient to mention them in the keyboard article.
  • unsigned edit by 24.19.173.159 (talk • contribs)

• Delete: Vaporware. Klundberg 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: this is an advertisement, and the fact that you found the info through /. doesn't make it less of an ad. Bottom line, lots of people have been spamming slashdot recently and managed to get past the not-so-keen eye of the editors. Slashvertisement. Adidas 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Agree with previous Delete voters. Blatant press release masquerading as content.
  • unsigned edit by 208.213.81.136 (talk • contribs)

• Vote: Delete: Ditto - ovvldc 14:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC) If kept, it should be widened and crossreferenced with similar products.

• Vote: Delete: Too much like an advert. Not public interest enough. --Mwongozi 14:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Until it is an actual product that has some impact on the market. Until then, perhaps some mention on an article about keyboards. - Zelda 15:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Weak Keep: Either merge under a "future developments" in computer keyboard or reduce this to a stub with picture denoting that it is a prototype. Kirz 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete Agree with other delete posts here. This isn't a real product, and it's worth significant until it is released. If it persists as vaporware and enters the public consciousness (e.g., Duke Nukem Forever), then it warrants a page. But we're not there yet. Rstandefer 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Computer Keyboard: Changed my mind: create a section "Future Developments" under the Design section and add this sort of keyboard to that. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Weak keep: Since it is getting widespread publicity, I'd say keep, but only if given a less 'buymeNow' overtone. Hemsath 15:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: But curb the ad-babble and edit it into context of a new project in the design of peripherals. Thamyris 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Salvage anything neutral and free of marketing taint and put it someplace useful. I've heard Computer Keyboard suggested, and that seems right to me. And on a related subject, how did a "VfD" page get into the "Did You Know" section of the Main Page? And finally... folks, please sign your votes. I'd like visual assurance we're not being sockpuppeted by "interested parties" to this marketing page. -- Gnoitall 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the page up for deletion after noticing it on the Main Page. --Naddy 19:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, sigs prevent sockpuppets :P ---Pope Benedict 12:12, 01 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with Computer keyboard. •Zhatt• 16:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: But change the title to something like "Reconfigurable Computer Keyboard", rearrange the structure to minimize the brand placement, and imply that most graphical keycap keyboards have turned out to vaporware, but in 2005, company X announced theirs would use the new OLED technology, but as of July 2005, the only visible evidence of the Optimus keyboard is a computer generated rendition. Then, future changes could say either, "the first working prototype was shown at the 2007 CES in Las Vegas" or "as of July 2007, it appears that the Optimus keyboard also turned out to be vaporware." JJLatWiki 16:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep-PlasmaDragon 16:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising for a product that does not exist other than as a dream and electrons (very crystal ball), and has no notability, other than a linkspam on slashdot. In a related note, my sypathies go out to the admin to has to sort through this mess or good posts, anon IPs, sock puppets, and a whole slew of users who've made mabe a dozen posts since they opened acounts some time in '04. (i.e. many of those redlinked users.) --Icelight 17:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Computer keyboard under a Future Development section, like what Cabhan recommended. Although some unreleased products are notable, this one isn't, no more so than every other quirky product/thing/idea/meme-of-the-week that gets linked from Boing Boing or Slashdot (and there are thousands of them). -- Lifefeed 17:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: Apparently, this manufacturer is dependable. If/when this product comes to fruition, it could have enourmous ramifications in the computer industry; in mere years, static-character keyboards would be relics of the 20th century. -Ayeroxor 17:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Computer keyboard or even OLED. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 17:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep LegCircus 18:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: What is wrong with articles on vaporware? Even vaporware can have important cultural influence. I want wikipedia to tell me what's what, instead of having to rely on the manufacturers website alone. It is definetely of importance to the public since for instance someone might postpone keyboard purchases after reading the article, planning instead to wait for the optimus keyboard. If you think it's vaporware then by all means register that concern in the article. Potential buyers might want to know! --CygnusPius 18:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Article is on significant piece of technology, and, while speculative in nature, is based on factual estimates of available technology and official press releases. jglc | t | c 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Needs to be a note about the technology itself OLED. It would be a shame to see Wikipedia become a dumping ground for commercial ads that are really undercover marketing campaigns. One of the biggest things that draws me to wiki is that it is truely an informational site without advertisements. Advertisements hidden in the form of educational articles are truely insideous. If this article, and otherslike it, stays Wikipedia will enter the realm of commercialism.--P Todd 19:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it ever becomes more than a set of renderings on a website, then we should probably have an article about it. But until then, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: The technology is useful. -- User:Ray Van De Walker 20:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• This vote actually by 65.171.255.181 (talk • contribs).

• Merge with computer keyboard. I vote NOT to delete I've seen pages FAR more worthy of deletion. The concept is pretty nifty. Also wanna say, no one gives a damn about Dvorak keyboards. --TheDoober 20:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: Shows an innovative concept that is interesting to read about. Could possibly exist sometime in the future. Eightball 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" CDC (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Merge into computer keyboard (and redirect optimus keyboard to there); alone, this article constitutes advertising. Within 'computer keyboard' this would be a minor yet viable addition to wikipedia. --afterword 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I absolutely love the idea, but as per CDC and others, it doesn't exist yet and can only be considered a one-off, non-notable work of art. At best, it's advertising and speculation. I'm also skeptical of the Art. Lebedev Studio article... —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: The popularity of this meme on the Internet is, in itself, interesting enough reason for an article, even if it is vaporware. Kwertii 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vaporware without mindshare. Stirling Newberry 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: But please link to, or create articles on other keyboards with LCD displays, or the technology in general. Optimus might be unique with its colour OLED technology, but many other keyboards use black and white backlit LCDs on their key fascias, many being used in the broadcast industry. (I'm sorry I do not have any names right now.) Mr. Brownstone 21:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Computer keyboard, under the Designs section, per Cabhan's suggestion. Anyways, that section talks about "a large number of different arrangements of symbols on keys," but only a couple designs are specifically mentioned. – Minh Nguye^~n (talk, contribs, blog) 21:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We have pages for other prototype developments. --Vaergoth 21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep An interesting potential development.--82.44.102.209 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vaporware. Thue | talk 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Seems it would be better as a mention on another article (perhaps Computer keyboard), as it doesn't seem worthy of its own article, especially with its current vaporware status. Bushytails 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Merge with Computer keyboard. --Cybersavior 22:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with a more general article, either keyboards or programmable-display keyboards specifically. I'm a programmer by trade and have been using computers throughout my (admittely young) life, and this is the first I've heard of OLED/LCD-top keyboards. A quick Google search did not turn up much else on the technology so far, and it seems this prototype is important among models currently in existence. In my opinion, it seems that LED-top keyboards could become an extremely important part of computing as computers become more global and Unicode support becomes more of a necessity. So I'm in favor of keeping information about this model at present, though I agree ultimately the better place for it would be in a more general article about computer keyboards with programmable displays. --faseidman 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: delete But why is a VFD article on the main page in the first place? Anyway, since this doesn't actually exist, scrap it. 65.0.31.216 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC) EDIT: This was my vote, I forgot to log in. Vonspringer 23:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep or Merge Space elevators are "vaporware" that has an aticle currently, and this keyboard should be out fairly soon, and we have many instances of specifc products like the Commodore 64 and such. Could be merged too...

Zotel 23:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: Once it's released, if it truly is so revolutionary, it can get its own article. As of right now, it should be relegated to a "future concepts" section or something. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 01:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with computer keyboard or Keep and rewrite as suggested above. It interested me! Keeps the benefits of the article and removes the ad content. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is extremely confused. It talks about a prototype which doesn't appear to exist, and a Technical specification which is more of a wishlist. Some comments on other votes:
  Pburka 04:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Space elevators - yes, we have an article about them, but not about a specific theoretical model. There's no Otis Space Elevator 3000 article.
  • Several voters talk about this prototype. This is not a prototype. It's an artist's impression of what a prototype might look like.
  • Speaking of non-existent products, though, why don't we have an iBrator article? That's notable vaporware!
    • My point was we have vaporware and specific "real" products, so shouldn't a combo of the two be acceptable? Why else have the "future product" tag at all - Zotel 00:01, 01 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If the technology is already in use in other products, that should be added to the article. Eixo 09:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: If Crew Exploration Vehicle has an article, why shouldn't this? I agree it definitely merits reworkig to make it less like an advertisement. Also, redefinable keys are cool, I mean look what this button doe123nNfj8??!%(?^£"NO CARRIER —Neuropedia 19:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete on the "stop giving nn technical articles more slack than nn nontechnical ones" principle. Nandesuka 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete it's an ad. I'm taking it out of the computer keyboard article too, where it's taking up a good quarter of the actual content. If they want to have content in Wikipedia it should have less hype splashed everywhere. It does not matter how cool it is. --kop 02:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep though I think alter the tone of the article somewhat --KharBevNor 02:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Are we going to create articles for every idea a graphics designer has? This is far too ETSB. ed g2s • talk 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It is an informative article that simply requires some NPOV editing.--Fahrenheit451 00:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, astroturfing. —Cryptic (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete. A list of specifications which may or may not be met, with no available prototype... I don't think this even belongs in the Wikipedia, and certainly not linked to from the front page. This is slashdot/wikinews stuff. Robert 00:51:13, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: Like many others who vote for keeping, I agree that simply deleting this article is overkill. The point of wikipedia is that users can change the information. Why isn't this done already? This idea already has a controversial history on this site, in helping define how the community and the project handle vaporware and distinguish between the intent of user edits Certainly these contributions, along with a good strong copyedit that makes everything clear, would allow the article to stay. Ahutson 08:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: A product that is making a lot of news right now. It might not have gone into production yet, but then neither has the Playstation 3. --PopUpPirate 16:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: It's too early yet to cry vaporware on this. The company producing seems to have some reputation in Russia already and its generating lots of news. If we have an article on The Phantom (a true vaporware story) then we can have an article on this too. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 00:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: If the advertising is removed. -- Mbisanz 09:32, August 2, 2005 (EST)

Vote: Keep: I think that this is a great idea. This is NOT vaporware because it has not even come out yet, so there is no delay to complain about. this is a new idea, and will likely change the way people will use a computer. frankly, i want one of these "smart keyboards". now Starcraft: Ghost- thats vaporware. -- Fluke 11:33, August 5, 2005 (EST)

Vote: Keep: It's a very interesting product that appears to be genuine and in production

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.