Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML5 vs. Flash

HTML5 vs. Flash

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

This has been around for a week or so but doesn't seem to be evolving into anything other than a personal essay. The material on it is more than adequately covered on other pages including those on HTML 5 and Flash. Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research, personal essay, and invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the weird example images and formatting the article has, it's pretty much nothing but an opinion piece. (BTW, DustFormsWords, I changed your wikilink from WP:FORK to WP:CFORK because I'm pretty sure that's what you were referring to.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes. I'd never even been to WP:FORK before. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay page, mostly original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comparison of HTML5 and Flash is a completely legitimate topic. The HTML5 article does not offer a comparison with Flash, and the Adobe Flash article doesn't have more to say on the topic than this: "HTML 5 is gaining ground as a competitor to Flash: the canvas element assists animation, and text can be more easily synchronized with audio and video element timeupdate events." Therefore I don't think it is fair to call this a content fork – and merging the content of this article into a specific choice between HTML5 and Adobe Flash would give this unduly localized prominence. As to the complaint that this is OR, most of the judgements expressed are properly sourced, and many of the remaining ones easily sourceable. I see no major problems that cannot be addressed by the usual Wikiprocess. --Lambiam 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Properly sourced"? The sources are blogs and comment sections. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]