Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streaming websites

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of streaming websites

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

Unsourced, redlinky. Definition too wide — are we talking about streaming video? Audio? Both? Seems to serve no purpose that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Streaming media, can mean audio and/or video, useful list that doesn't need to be deleted JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess a category would be better. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and "Useful" is not a good enough point.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'delete unbounded list - Nabla (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Articles can coexist with categories... nothing wrong with that at all. Maybe the criteria for inclusion needs a bit of redefining, but I think the topic is a sound one.--Coin945 (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because of the article can coexist with category rationale, but the term "Streaming media" is such a vague term it makes the list violates WP:NOR and I don't think redefining will salvage this list. Secret ^account 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. This is a ridiculously common feature of websites these days, maybe not quite as bad as something like "list of websites that take credit card payments", but heading there. I disagree with nearly every deletion rationale above, however. Utility is relevant to lists because their validity comes, in part, from the usefulness in organizing and presenting encyclopedic information. And per WP:CLN, whether this is duplicative of a category is irrelevant; moreover, there is no such category, nor should there be for the same reasons this list should not exist. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but this list article has too wide of an inclusion criteria, in which any website that has streaming capabilities could be added to it. For example, every news network that has streaming video on their website could be added to it, along with blogs, fansites, advertising sites, etc. See also: the essay WP:LISTCRUFT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:57, 7 January 2013 (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.