Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTP payload formats: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:39, 10 May 2025

Latest revision as of 06:10, 3 June 2025

(29 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">

===[[:RTP payload formats]]===

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|U}}

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. But it looks like there's consensus for "this article shouldn't exist at this title", so the next step may be [[WP:RM]]. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

===[[:RTP payload formats]]===

<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>

:{{la|1=RTP payload formats}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTP payload formats|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1026#{{anchorencode:RTP payload formats}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1289657076/cur|edits since nomination]])

:({{Find sources AFD|title=RTP payload formats}})

This is nothing more than a list of citations to [[IETFRequests RfCfor Comments]]s. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTDIR|not a directory]] or [[WP:NOTCATALOG|a catalog]] [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|Computing]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet|Internet]]. '''[[User:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">WC</span>''<span style="color:#999933">Quidditch</span>'']]''' [[User talk:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Wcquidditch|<span style="color:#999933">✎</span>]] 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)</small>

*:*<s>'''Delete'''</s> I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. [[User:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|Anonrfjwhuikdzz]] ([[User talk:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|talk]]) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

*'''Redirect''' to [[Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats]]. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to ''List of RTP payload formats''.

::I agree with [[User:Pppery]] that this article is sort of a list, but disagree that this is inappropriate. The table that constitues the bulk of the article gives context and explanation, refuting the argument on directories and catalogs. Instead, it describes a notable subject: the fact that there exist plethora of RTP payloads. It serves as a stepping stone for further investigation and research for those with further interest.

::I also disagree with [[User:MarioGom]] that a redirect should suffice and with [[User:Wcquidditch]] that the existence is sufficiently described in the main article. The referenced section only briefly summarises the large number of different formats.— [[User:Dandorid|<i>_<u>D</u>^<b>a</b><small>n</small>_<u>d</u>^<b>o</b><small>r</small>^<b>i</b>_<u>D</u></i>]] ([[User Talk:Dandorid|talk]]) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::My only comment here (until now) has purely been deletion sorting; I have (and had) no opinion on the article. It is [[User:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|Anonrfjwhuikdzz]] that says that material at the main article — which I will note is [[Real-time Transport Protocol]] — is sufficient. '''[[User:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">WC</span>''<span style="color:#999933">Quidditch</span>'']]''' [[User talk:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Wcquidditch|<span style="color:#999933">✎</span>]] 10:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would be find with a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not convinced and exhaustive list is appropriate for wikipedia as we're not supposed to be a directory/catalog --- that's a job for the RFC series. [[User:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|Anonrfjwhuikdzz]] ([[User talk:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|talk]]) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The RFC Editor only lists all RFCs and makes them available. It is not a function of the RFC Editor to present overviews per subject of any kind. The overview presented in [[RTP payload formats]], compiled by many editors, stands on its own and has become a ''de facto'' source on the subject. This is reflected in the number of visitors of the page. Deletion would be a disservice to the public, IMHO; a rename better reflects the nature of the article.— [[User:Dandorid|<i>_<u>D</u>^<b>a</b><small>n</small>_<u>d</u>^<b>o</b><small>r</small>^<b>i</b>_<u>D</u></i>]] ([[User Talk:Dandorid|talk]]) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' - meets [[WP:NLIST]]: [https://books.google.com/books?id=VWK1DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA441&dq=rtp%20payload%20formats&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0#v=onepage&q=rtp%20payload%20formats&f=false], [https://books.google.com/books?id=N55RLwEACAAJ&dq=rtp%20payload%20formats&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0], [https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/rtp/payload.html], [https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.txt], [https://www.gnu.org/software/ccrtp/doc/manual/html/Payload-Types-and-Formats.html], etc. Rename to [[List of RTP payload formats]] if necessary. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

*'''Redirect''' to [[Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats]] per MarioGom. There is already a section in RTP main page. This looks like a list and notability is not really clear for a stand alone article. But it can be integrated to [[Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Standards_documents]]. I also do not think wikipedia is a repsitory of stuff, when external links can be used for a database that has such standards. [[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]], Do you think that the [[WP:LISTN]] standard is met? If so, would you be happy if we renamed the article to make it clear that it is a list and closed this AfD.

*:As a stand-alone article, it sounds like you're making a [[WP:NOT]] argument. What section of that policy do you think applies here? I guess [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] would be the most likely mapping for {{tq|repository of stuff}} but I personally don't see a clear match to this situation. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

*::I don’t think this meets [[WP:NLIST]]. Renaming may not help. I think an external link would be better than using Wikipedia as a depository. [[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 20:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:<div class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 04:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></div>

*'''Comment''' {{u|MarioGom}} and {{u|Ramos1990}} have suggested redirecting which I assume means they don't believe we should have a stand-alone article/list on this topic. Without providing a reason for this preference, I assume/hope whoever closes this discussion will not give these opinions much weight. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Explained more on my reasoning.[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::*'''Comment''' I'm not convinced this article is not acting as a directory for RFC articles/RTP payloads. Yes there is some discussion of these formats as a group which would qualify this for NLIST, but the arguments in favor of deletion/redirection have centered around what [[WP:ISNOT]].

:::Outside of the opening summary there is not much providing context for the protocols. I don't understand the reasoning from @[[User:Dandorid|Dandorid]] that the table provides context or explanation to these protocols. These are just very basic summaries of the protocol specifications from my reading, but where is the context about development and uses that makes these entries something more than [[WP:NOTPLOT]]? Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA, so why not just link to their website in the main RTP protocol article for people with further interest? The only parts of the table that provided additional context were certain descriptions detailing changes in payload type/the reasons for reserved blocks but those specific instances could easily be added to the prose at [[Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats]].

::*All of that said, I do want to change my vote to '''redirct''' with the target being the most appropriate section of [[Real-time Transport Protocol]]. [[User:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|Anonrfjwhuikdzz]] ([[User talk:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|talk]]) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

*Either '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' with some other article, but absolutely don't delete the content. This article just helped me out today. [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 05:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::This illustrates my point. {{tq|Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA}} would be great to have, but I doubt it actually exists, [[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]]. I believe this article summarises the wealth of options, in a way that a picture tells more than a thousand words. If you would summarise this page somewhere in a section of [[Real-time transport protocol]] you would need more than a thousand words to do the summary right.— [[User:Dandorid|<i>_<u>D</u>^<b>a</b><small>n</small>_<u>d</u>^<b>o</b><small>r</small>^<b>i</b>_<u>D</u></i>]] ([[User Talk:Dandorid|talk]]) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:*So '''Keep''' or '''Rename'''. There is a dynamic that some fail to see here: Wikipedia is a ''primary'' source of information to many people. A sort of low information [[entropy]]: a concentration, a density, brought together by people that felt a certain need to do so. Destroying a page like this increases information entropy, which leaves you with a greater burden of finding the information (which undoubtedly exists in many places) yourself, and you only get it in bits and pieces. Most likely, somebody will recreate this page somewhere in the future, for the same reasons [[User:Sergeymasushko]] had when creating [[RTP payload formats]]. — [[User:Dandorid|<i>_<u>D</u>^<b>a</b><small>n</small>_<u>d</u>^<b>o</b><small>r</small>^<b>i</b>_<u>D</u></i>]] ([[User Talk:Dandorid|talk]]) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:*: This is an utterly meaningless argument - by this logic one should never delete anything. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::Well, that is the main idea of [[WP:Inclusionism]] on Wikipedia, and I support inclusionism. After all, [[WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]], and we already have Britannica, which is generally more reliable than Wikipedia (see [[WP:CW]]), and only chooses the ''most'' notable topics. I think the advantage of Wikipedia is that it covers more niche topics compared to a traditional encyclopedia such as Britannica, which is why I'm an inclusionist. I usually read Britannica to get a broad overview of more popular topics, and I use Wikipedia for more niche topics like computing (this article) and railways. [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 09:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::If none of my arguments make any sense whatsoever (I guess that is what you mean by {{tq|utterly meaningless}}) then, by your logic, you should delete all articles and do away with Wikipedia altogether. — [[User:Dandorid|<i>_<u>D</u>^<b>a</b><small>n</small>_<u>d</u>^<b>o</b><small>r</small>^<b>i</b>_<u>D</u></i>]] ([[User Talk:Dandorid|talk]]) 07:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:<div class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></div>

{{ping|Sandstein}} What's the justification for relisting this a second time? We're rehashing standard inclusionist/deletionist arguments and I'm sure you're aware we won't reach consensus on that here and continuing to discuss it does not foster goodwill between editors. There are no delete votes and it is pretty clear to me that the article meets [[WP:NLIST]]. The proposed merge or redirect suggestions can be worked on outside AfD. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 23:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The reason is that we don't yet have consensus among the editors who are advancing policy-based arguments. The closer would need to discount the last two "keep" opinions. This means there is still no agreement as to keep or redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 06:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Félix An|Dandorid}} can you offer us a [[WP:DP|policy-based reason]] why we should not delete this article? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Dandorid|Dandorid]] Will you also please strike one of your bolded votes? I am seeing a keep and two bolded renames from you. [[User:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|Anonrfjwhuikdzz]] ([[User talk:Anonrfjwhuikdzz|talk]]) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:var(--color-error, red)">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>