Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (6th nomination)
since my view is known).  The problem that we have with video game generations is that they are defined in general well after the generation has actually started or even after the generation has passed, and not on the bleeding edge of that generation.  Its same with any gross qualification of a period of time relative to a topic - the ages of mankind, the periods of painting, even considering significant recessions and inflationary periods despite the evidence of changes at the onset.  I don't question that we will have an 8th generation of consoles. I do not deny that the Wii U may end up being in that 8th generation, but as there is no defined "shape" to this generation as we can make with 1st-7th generations, no one - at least, as a Wikipedia editor - can make that assessment.  We need the industry to say "Ok, now we know we're in the 8th generation", and from past history this likely won't happen until there's more physical evidence of the next MS and Sony console units. Now as to this AFD, a lot of these issues go away if there was a rename to this article. If we called it "History of video game consoles (2010-present)", keeping all the same information but removing the speculative 8th generation stuff (or at least qualifying it as a tentative 8th gen), leaving it as "the industry has yet to classify the Wii U" ''and'' keeping all the other previous history articles at their 1-7th generations, I could see that happening. It would properly reflect that the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U are nebulous in relationship to how they should be classified but removes none of the information about it.  As soon as it is clear where the industry drops the Wii U in regards to generations, we can either rename the article or move the information appropriately.  (I ''am'' against deleting the information, but presently most of this is duplicate from specific hardware pages).  But basically at the end of the day, the term "8th generation" is a |neologism and until it is readily accept as to its definition, we should be avoiding it
— User:Masem, 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)