Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTP payload formats

RTP payload formats

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

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of RTP payload formats.

I agree with User:Pppery that this article is sort of a list, but disagree that this is inappropriate. The table that constitues the bulk of the article gives context and explanation, refuting the argument on directories and catalogs. Instead, it describes a notable subject: the fact that there exist plethora of RTP payloads. It serves as a stepping stone for further investigation and research for those with further interest.

I also disagree with User:MarioGom that a redirect should suffice and with User:Wcquidditch that the existence is sufficiently described in the main article. The referenced section only briefly summarises the large number of different formats.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment here (until now) has purely been deletion sorting; I have (and had) no opinion on the article. It is Anonrfjwhuikdzz that says that material at the main article — which I will note is Real-time Transport Protocol — is sufficient. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be find with a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not convinced and exhaustive list is appropriate for wikipedia as we're not supposed to be a directory/catalog --- that's a job for the RFC series. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC Editor only lists all RFCs and makes them available. It is not a function of the RFC Editor to present overviews per subject of any kind. The overview presented in RTP payload formats, compiled by many editors, stands on its own and has become a de facto source on the subject. This is reflected in the number of visitors of the page. Deletion would be a disservice to the public, IMHO; a rename better reflects the nature of the article.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NLIST: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Rename to List of RTP payload formats if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats per MarioGom. There is already a section in RTP main page. This looks like a list and notability is not really clear for a stand alone article. But it can be integrated to Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Standards_documents. I also do not think wikipedia is a repsitory of stuff, when external links can be used for a database that has such standards. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MarioGom and Ramos1990 have suggested redirecting which I assume means they don't believe we should have a stand-alone article/list on this topic. Without providing a reason for this preference, I assume/hope whoever closes this discussion will not give these opinions much weight. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explained more on my reasoning. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced this article is not acting as a directory for RFC articles/RTP payloads. Yes there is some discussion of these formats as a group which would qualify this for NLIST, but the arguments in favor of deletion/redirection have centered around what WP:ISNOT.

Outside of the opening summary there is not much providing context for the protocols. I don't understand the reasoning from @Dandorid that the table provides context or explanation to these protocols. These are just very basic summaries of the protocol specifications from my reading, but where is the context about development and uses that makes these entries something more than WP:NOTPLOT? Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA, so why not just link to their website in the main RTP protocol article for people with further interest? The only parts of the table that provided additional context were certain descriptions detailing changes in payload type/the reasons for reserved blocks but those specific instances could easily be added to the prose at Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats.

All of that said, I do want to change my vote to redirct with the target being the most appropriate section of Real-time Transport Protocol. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]