Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of video hosting services

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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video hosting services

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

Clearly this should have been deleted a long time ago because it is nothing more then an advertisement for the various video streaming services and is not even encyclopedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I haven't seen any responses to my questions.) There's a lot of services on the list, so I don't think it really works as an advertisement for any of them in particular. More importantly, maybe, Wikipedia has a number of "comparison of .... " articles. As a user I've often found them fairly helpful, since they include more information than a standard list. Why is this list different than other similar lists? In particular, since this is AFD, and we're talking about a list, are you asserting that there is a notability problem? or what? See WP:NOTESAL for notability information for stand-alone lists. I would be amenable to a rename proposal, or to deletion if there are grounds for deletion, but I'm not seeing anything in the nomination here. --Lquilter (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the criteria in WP:LISTPURP. This seems to be one of the better examples, unlike, this example where pruning and cleanup is needed.--Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:LISTPURP. Also, the page doesn't have a promotional tone and certainly doesn't exist in an advertising style. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator point to another product comparison article (or just ordinary list of products) that he does not believe are advertisements? postdlf (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly educational and encyclopedic, and the subject of comparisons of these groups has indeed received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2012 (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.