Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of HTML5 and Flash: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) closed discussion as keep |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 11:
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML5 vs. Flash}}</ul></div>
:({{Find sources|Comparison of HTML5 and Flash}})
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. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
: '''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]] -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">[[User:SamJohnston|samj]] <small
'''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
Line 32:
*'''Keep''', then '''rewrite''' with a more neutral POV, per Wouter VdB's rationale.--[[User:Cavarrone|Cavarrone]] ([[User talk:Cavarrone|talk]]) 06:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this article is useful for the readers since the references is cited but it should require '''rewrite''' per [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] and [[User:Cavarrone|Cavarrone]] - [[User:WPSamson|WPSamson]] ([[User talk:WPSamson|talk]]) 01:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||