Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML5 vs. Flash
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LFaraone (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 28 December 2010 (Closing debate, result was no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 02:22, 28 December 2010 by LFaraone (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was no consensus)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HTML5 vs. Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (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]
- I'll concede that not all sources cited are equally reliable, but that is (as I see it) not the main point; the main issue to be considered here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable and could be developed into a reliably sourced article. Further, I do not think that being a blog makes a source unreliable per se; what counts is the distinction between self-published sources and sources that are published under some form of editorial control that may be assumed to uphold certain standards. Many leading technology weblogs have a professional editorial staff, and are of comparable quality as technology magazines in print. As it is, the topic of the article does not interest me, but if anyone else is inspired, here is a list of sources that (again, in my opinion) are reliable and can be used for the article:
- CNET News:
- Stephen Shankland (February 3, 2010). "HTML vs. Flash: Can a turf war be avoided?". CNET News.
- CNN:
- Doug Gross (November 2, 2010). "HTML5 vs Flash? Pick a side with 'Pong'". CNN Tech.
- Engadget (yes, a technology blog, but generally considered reliable, with a strong editorial staff and knowledgeable authors with sound contributions; this particular article was actually cited in a scholarly article in Law Library Journal 102, no.3):
- Donald Melanson (March 10, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash comparison finds a few surprises, settles few debates". Engadget.
- Focus.com:
- "HTML5 vs Flash". Focus.com. October 12, 2010.
- Gizmodo (nominally a blog, but generally reliable and more like an e-zine; it has an editorial team, and John Herrman is a regular and knowledgeable contributor):
- John Herrman (March 10, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: The Video Benchmark Deathmatch". Gizmodo.
- InformationWeek:
- Thomas Claburn (May 6, 2010). "Web 2.0: Scribd Drops Flash For HTML5". InformationWeek.
- InfoWorld:
- Paul Krill (June 16, 2009). "HTML5: Could it kill Flash and Silverlight?". InfoWorld.
- Peter Wayner (June 2, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: The case for Flash". InfoWorld.
- Knight Digital Media Center, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism:
- Jeremy Rue (October 20, 2010). "Flash vs. HTML5: What should journalists learn next?". KDMC, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
- Mashable:
- Christina Warren (September 17, 2010). "Flash vs. HTML5: Adobe Weighs In". Mashable.
- The New York Times (the original source may be a technology blog, but one with an editorial team; by republishing this article it was sanctioned as reliable by the NYT):
- Sarah Perez (March 10, 2010). "Does HTML5 Really Beat Flash? The Surprising Results of New Tests". The New York Times.
- TechCrunch:
- Jason Kincaid (July 29, 2010). "YouTube Weighs In On Flash vs HTML5 Video". TechCrunch.
- VentureBeat (same story: technology blog with an editorial team):
- Dominique Jodoin (December 17, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: How will the battle play out in 2011?". VentureBeat.
- CNET News:
- --Lambiam 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede that not all sources cited are equally reliable, but that is (as I see it) not the main point; the main issue to be considered here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable and could be developed into a reliably sourced article. Further, I do not think that being a blog makes a source unreliable per se; what counts is the distinction between self-published sources and sources that are published under some form of editorial control that may be assumed to uphold certain standards. Many leading technology weblogs have a professional editorial staff, and are of comparable quality as technology magazines in print. As it is, the topic of the article does not interest me, but if anyone else is inspired, here is a list of sources that (again, in my opinion) are reliable and can be used for the article:
- Keep per sources brought by Lambiam. Topic seems indeed to meet GNG. The article needs at least a complete rewrite, but that's an editorial process that per deletion policy it is not a reason to delete. Perhaps also a move to "Comparison between HTML5 and Flash" could help focus the issue, but again, not an AfD matter. --Cyclopiatalk 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete but it is a legit topic but right now it :DustFormsWords has it the nail on the head its Original research, personal essay, and invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. Some one can (and probably should) recreate it in way that abides by our policies. I think the article Office suite would be a good model on how to do the recreation The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Most of the sources provided by Lambiam are excellent and certainly demonstrate notability. This is a great opportunity to provide encyclopedic coverage of a timely developing topic. I refactored the existing content and substantially cleaned up the article. --Pnm (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.