Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTP payload formats: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Re |
→RTP payload formats: Reply |
||
Line 30:
:*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><sub><u>D</u></sub><sup><b>a</b></sup><small>n</small><sub><u>d</u></sub><sup><b>o</b></sup><small>r</small><sup><b>i</b></sup><sub><u>D</u></sub></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)
| |||