Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of HTML5 and Flash

Comparison of HTML5 and Flash

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

This WP:ESSAY is WP:ORIGINAL research and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Adobe Flash and HTML 5 articles. The subject is of questionable WP:NOTABILITY and is comparing apples to oranges (HTML+CSS+JS != HTML 5), as evidenced by the lede statement: "HTML5 can sometimes be used as an alternative to Adobe Flash". There are obvious WP:NPOV issues, no doubt due to WP:COI of the editors and with even Adobe having given up on Flash (at least on mobile and TV) in favour of HTML 5, it's unlikely anyone would write a "HTML vs Flash" article today. All in all Wikipedia would be better off if this article were deleted as it is not encyclopedic and more appropriate for someone's personal blog. -- samj _in^out 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion under a different name and the result was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HTML5_vs._Flash -- samj _in^out 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the above claim to delete it. I think the statement that websites have started using HTML5 instead of flash is a neutral one, unlike what you claim, simply because it is true (as an example, Youtube that was traditionally all flash, has started to provide HTML5 players for devices that don't support flash). I came to wikipedia searching for a comparision between the two technologies, and have found this article very helpful. It would be a shame to delete it and not have this comparision, especially when in the tech world, people compare the two technologies every day. - Dasarp

Delete – I agree with samj. This is a terrible article, despite all of its sources. Any of the (little) good information can be incorporated into the HTML 5 and Flash articles in a comparison section. This is nothing more than an essay, and a poorly written one at that. Particularly bad is the testing section with no explanation of the testing parameters (treating CPU usage on a single, undefined machine as a value that actually matters and comparing undefined HTML5 and Flash files without even the assertion that they are somewhat comparable animations). —danhash (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — I'd say some rewriting is necessary to make it more appropriate for wiki, and some sections need removal/addition, but it's sourced, and I'd say is notable in terms of current important browser technologies. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article contains a significant amount of well source information which is encyclopedic in nature. In the long term, I think that this article should be summed up and merged into HTML5 as a comparison to existing technologies section. Jncraton (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HTML5. It's a wp:Notable debate (which I can't find an actual policy about) concerning notable technologies, but it's currently a bit too close to violating NOT#FAQ. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability was clearly established in last year's Afd and notability is not temporary. As Lambiam said in that discussion, "merging the content of this article into a specific choice between HTML5 and Adobe Flash would give [the comparison] unduly localized prominence." Afd is not for cleanup: delete the original research. There's a lot of well-referenced content. Participate in discussion to reach neutral POV. What does the eventual resolution of the conflict (i.e. Adobe backing down) have to do with the topic's relevance? Flash isn't gone, and the comparison still belongs in its own article for now. If Flash were gone, maybe it could be moved there instead, but let's not write history before it happens. Thinking from an historical perspective may be useful, though: it's clear that the article doesn't need so much detail about performance, for example. --Pnm (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have Adobe Flash and HTML5. What this WP:ESSAY adds to that is comparison material that is far from being as well-sourced as it should be. -- 202.124.73.250 (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge into HTML5 Merge into Adobe Flash As a comparison of two competing technologies, it rightly belongs in neither main article, otherwise we have duplicates to maintain. The article does indeed need attention but keep as per Lambian (talk · contribs)'s sourcing in the previous Afd --Senra (Talk) 13:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just a user and found this article useful (good summary, links for further reading). That alone would be reason enough for me to keep it. Of course usability of the Wikipedia is subordinate to its policy which I don't understand, but that leaves my option unaffected. 89.0.130.44 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i.e., rename/rewrite. The 'Flash versus HTML 5 controversy was (and still is) an important phenomenon (in its context) with lasting effects. It as such is worthy of a dedicated article that could cover the history and context of the controversy, and, potentially, discuss the merits of some of the accusations expressed by some parties involved in this controversy. Several of these aspects are covered in the current article, but needs further work. The article is slightly biased in favor of Flash, but the original motivation for deletion, however, is clearly biased in favor of HTML 5. A good article on this controversy should be neutral, as should be any evaluation of it content. --Wouter VdB (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite in standard table-driven format as other technical comparisons, such as Comparison of word processors, Comparison of text editors, Comparison of Linux distributions and Comparison of web server software. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then rewrite with a more neutral POV, per Wouter VdB's rationale.--Cavarrone (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is useful for the readers since the references is cited but it should require rewrite per Stuartyeates and Cavarrone - WPSamson (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]