Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazon Kindle Content Sources

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 merge to Kindle. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That target page is now Amazon Kindle, while Kindle has become a disambiguation page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Kindle Content Sources

Contested prod. This content was split from the Kindle article, but I don't feel there is enough material for it to stand on its own. Wikipedia is not a directory of services. TN X Man 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to primary article Kindle. That article is not too large and this means little out of context. One might even argue that the content is the most important thing about Kindle. Drawn Some (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links however well annotated they are. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: There were discussions on available content and this addressed that issue back in December 2008. Back then it was part of the article. Since then, others have added to the table content improving upon my attempt at bring this information to the article. Others still have enhanced the look and feel of the table. So there is no question that people are finding the information useful. I have also seen people discussing the information in the table on several Kindle Discussion forums. In fact much of the original information came from various threads on those discussion forums.

I really don't care whether it is part of the article or on its own separate page. I would just hate to lose the information because it is so useful. I have seen arguments that it is providing advertising. Wouldn't any mention of a commercial product be a form of advertising them? Another argued that we should be providing directory services. Maybe. But I would argue that the people we are helping are the websites listed so much as people who use Kindles and are looking for content. Further, much of the information is free! And many of the websites listed have their won pages in Wikipedia! Knipfty (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being useful is not a reason to keep the article. For instance, a directory of phone numbers is useful; that doesn't mean it's suitable in an encyclopedia. MuZemike 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following "Being Useful" - Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." The information answers the question of available content that is beyond any one vendor. Given the level of activity around this question here on Wikipedia and on discussion forums, and the fact that people have added to the information, it is information that is in demand. Knipfty (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the disputer of the prod, I'm (obviously?) inclined to keep the material. It is split out of Amazon Kindle mainly for WP:SIZE. When this was first added to the Kindle article, I was opposed. I'm not entirely sure why I've changed my mind. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial cleanup is made and, particularly, something's done with all those external links and the vague "notes" column. It's currently acting as a link farm or some sort of directory, neither of which have any place on Wikipedia. I can understand the idea of wanting to fork from the main Kindle article, but the entire page currently just serves as advertising for the sources mentioned. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notes section provides information that makes each site unique. # of books available, do they need to do anything special in order to get Kindle books, etc. The links are there because the purpose is to provide a one-stop-shopping experience, so to speak. What good would it do say these sites are out there, but not provide a link to those sites? Some, but not, of the sites listed have there own pages in Wikipedia, so dropping the external links will take away a lot of the value of the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knipfty (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it this way: Drop the external links for proper names. Add internal links where they exist. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to be a "one-stop shop" (WP:LINKFARM), that's a service that other websites, such as Amazon itself, should provide. This article should be giving an insight into the services available, what makes them different and what would make the users want to use them. At the moment it's not approachable or useful and certainly not encyclopaedic. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a link farm and because wikipedia is not a directory service. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The linkfarm has been taken care of but the article is still essentially a directory. My !vote remains unchanged after the cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have now removed the external links from the article, eliminating its status as a linkfarm. I have invited other editors !voting delete here to reconsider their !votes too. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a directory of services for a software/hardware platform. This could be covered in a paragraph "multiple content sources are available for the Kindle, those include..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup per Greg Tyler, above, and merge back to main article, which is not long enough to require a split. The content should not be deleted simply because it does not stand well on its own, and the material if cleaned up will add to the encyclopedic coverage of the main topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and merge (per SMcCandlish). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:40, 11 June 2009 (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.