Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of video player software

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video player software

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. What little prose there is appears to be original research. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per WP:NOTPAPER. Comparison articles like this greatly aid comprehensibility of the topics they collate information about, and the enormous effort invested in their creation should not be squandered. Sources can likely be found for much of the material therein, and should be added where possible. I have added the \{\{refimprove\}\} template accordingly. zazpot (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale does not make any sense to me at all. This is a legitimate article following the standard "Comparison of" type of articles Wikipedia has on many topics—comparisons are 100% legit on Wikipedia. The specific comparisons here (e.g. audio/video/container format support) are quite useful, too. Of course there is little prose, as is the case with stand-alone lists. If there is something that needs to be sourced, that is not a reason for deletion.—J. M. (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a product comparison site. Ajf773 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here. First, it does not say anything about product comparisons, second, this article is not a guide (and does not use instructional, how-to language that WP:NOTGUIDE is about), third, Wikipedia itself acknowledges that "Comparison of" articles and stand-alone lists are a legitimate category. Furthermore, all players in this stand-alone list are notable enough and have their own article.—J. M. (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Software are products, are they not? I don't see how the link to the comparisons category automatically justifies this type of article ok. We also don't need to list promo crap such as prices. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, they are products. The point is that this has nothing to do with WP:NOTGUIDE, which covers something completely different. There is no Wikipedia policy that says there should be no articles about products or product comparisons. In fact, Wikipedia explicitly says these articles are allowed. And price, when sourced, is a regular piece of information, especially in a comparison. Nothing promotional about it.—J. M. (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOTGUIDE may not be relevant, but WP:NOTCATALOG certainly is. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers, nor is it Simple listings...[of] products and services which is exactly what this is. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No. WP:NOTCATALOG is just as irrelevant as WP:NOTGUIDE is. Please read WP:NOTCATALOG properly: there is absolutely nothing in it that would suggest that this article should not exist. The article is not a price comparison. The price comparison is only one minor component of the article (and WP:NOTCATALOG does not forbid price comparisons entirely). The article is also not a "simple listing without context information". It is a complex comparison of many aspects of notable products. Again, this is 100% legit, comparisons of notable products is a regular article category that Wikipedia explicitly mentions, allows, and many articles follow it in exactly the same way. Which is a long-standing consensus in the community of editors and administrators. This is not even a matter of opinion, this is not even something that can be discussed (and decided, changed) here.—J. M. (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a category therefore keep is not a valid reason for keeping an article, especially when the cat is full of articles like Comparison of early word processors which is a literally almost a copy/paste of ... wait for it ... a product catalog. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is simply not a catalog. In particular, it is most definitely not a sales catalog, which is the only kind of catalog that WP:NOTCATALOG actually mentions.—J. M. (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that's funny, because other than the fact that it's on Wikipedia, it is entirely indistinguishable from one. TimothyJosephWood 14:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this discussion (as keep) for all of the various relevant reasons brought up above. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't do Speedy Closes based on one users opinions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @User:Ajf773: We don't delete pages based on one user's opinion either, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mdrnpndr, I think Ajf773 was just pointing out that the deletion discussion would need to run its course, instead of being speedily closed. zazpot (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Unless references that meet WP:RS can be added to show that the comparison criteria used in this article are the same criteria used in third party publications, and that the headings (such as the list of operating systems in the Operating System Compatibility) are also based on third party publications, then this article is entirely Original Research. If the sources can be found for these and other WP:OR issues, I'll change my mind to a "Keep". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with all above! No reason for deletion. Article needs some improvements though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid AfD rationale. Content is not plot description, lyrics, statistics, software updates, nor devoid of context. Delete comments are using criteria that don't apply to comparison articles or, that if they did, would apply to ALL software comparison articles (so, if acceptable, would make us delete the whole category, not just this article). This kind of arguments that apply to a whole class of articles should be hold at policy talk pages, not on AfDs for individual articles. Diego (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Prices should be removed, citations should be added, etc. but it's a perfectly viable list. The important thing is that there's no shortage of other sources which offer similar lists/comparisons, the information is typically easily referenced, and all of the entries are notable examples with Wikipedia articles (presumably with references that could be brought over, even). As they're notable examples, and assuming the prices are removed, there's no WP:NOT issue here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:10, 8 February 2017 (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.