Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android media players

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Android media players

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Seemingly WP:SYNTH. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nom Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help me (so that I can improve upon the article) if editors would give reasons why they think that it should be deleted. Isn't it a rule that at least one WP policy should be mentioned? Aside from a policy, a reason based on substance seems required, even if only out of basic politeness. My reasons for keeping this article are that the reasons given for deletion do not apply.

1. WP:GNG does not apply because:

a. Android media players are notable, because stark majorities of smart phone users use them. Every smartphone has a default player.

b. Considering that even wp:otherstuffexists is not a hard and fast reason for deletion, then this case of other stuff exists that is far less notable most certainly does not a reason for deletion make. See my examples. Why keep those, and delete this? (please don't repeat the htmleditor thing, it's a bit selfserving)

2. WP:SYNTH does not apply because SYNTH_isnot. This seemed obvious to me, but perhaps I'm alone in that. There's no conclusion drawn, even though information from various sources is combined. I'm curious, has WP:SYNTH ever been successfully used as a reason for deletion for a comparison table? Comparisons do not constitute Original Research.CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't agree with WP:GNG WP:SYNTH assessment. I do however have some reservations that the article will be useful in the long term: it will need maintenance. --Cornellier (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful" is a bad argument. NickCT (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK we get it NickCT. Please permit me to elaborate on what I meant by "It's useful": unlike the yellow pages, this is not meant to be a simple dumb list of items but rather a harvesting of information that exists in no other place and provides an objective overview of a collection of information. I say give the article a chance to take root and if it doesn't flower ... kill it. --Cornellier (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornellier: - Look, I'm not going to argue with you about whether it's useful or not. Maybe it is. But that's not the point. Articles have to be useful and encyclopedic. There are lot of potentially useful articles we could make that wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. NickCT (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Fair enough. Not to be pedantic, but what's the official definition of "encyclopedic"? I know there's a ton of WP:NOT but where's the WP:IS?

@Cornellier: - There are probably a couple ways to look at that question. I think the simplest is to point to notability. A subject deserves an article in an encyclopedia if it is notable (i.e. it has been written about in independent secondary sources). NickCT (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Dear Nick, so far, you've used two invalid arguments against this article, which you've immediately abandoned when objections were made, SYNTH and "useful". So, your logic is weak, to the detriment of your other arguments. Merely citing a bunch of Wikipedia policies without bothering to actually defend and/or explain them properly is not gonna cut it, and frankly, diminishes your standing. Pruning is okay, but mindless pruning while rulethumping is decidedly NOT okay. You didn't even bother to address my points properly! So, you're not taking this seriously (enough). All the rules/policies you've cited also say that they're not set in stone. And encyclopedic, aside from it being subjective (what YOU like) you've failed STILL to show why the other comparison tables on more obscure subjects are encyclopedic while this is not. Are media players too low-brow for you, beneath you?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP is not a shopping guide. This article falls foul of WP:SYNTH because it combines different sources to arrive at conclusions that none of the individual sources mention. I also believe that "Comparison of products X" are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a comparison site or shopping guide.-- danntm ^T _C 05:45, 18 September 2014 (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.