Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of one-click hosters


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of one-click hosters
By it's very nature, this entire article consists of Original Research in violation of WP:OR. Also, WP:NOT a guide to this stuff, on Wikipedia. As potentially useful as it may, Wikipedia isn't the place for it; lots of free web hosts out there for this sort of thing. This AfD is also for Comparison of video services, for identical reasons and reasoning, and both share the AfD tag of the former. · XP  · 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom. --Aaron 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * bla bla bla, its useful information! -someguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.160.206 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep comparison of video services. It serves a similar purpose to comparison of media players.—thegreentrilby 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, both are almost 100% violations of WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT an online guide. · XP  · 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. They seem useful enough to keep to me.  If there is an external page with all the information on (for either article) then that article can be replaced by a link on the One-click hosting or Video hosting service page.  Otherwise, I see no reason to delete. NumberJunkie 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. This is really useful info and I see no point deleting it. Chris, Australia 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Very helpful information.  There are lots of other useful comparison pages on Wikipedia as well; no need to single these out and delete them. --Czj 08:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. I second Czj. There are several similar comparisons on wikipedia.  Most of them are useful.  If you think that all software/data comparison tables are in violation of wikipedia policy, than a larger discussion needs to occur to decide whether to keep or delete them.  Delirium of disorder 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. It's not only very useful, as written above. It's an important comparison of comparable things. That must be possible in an encyclopedia to have a comparison. Doesn't matter if it is services or bird eggs. I think this is a compilation of facts, just like any other wikipedia article. Add the other articles as references. KEEP. -- Michael Janich 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. While it may be research in the broadest sense it mostly consists of the same hunting of stuff on official webpages that exists in any article, is it research to put the the table of processor information and drive size on the iPod article?. That and tables comparing items have long been in encyclopedias. From tonnage weights of Ships in the Fleet to grain harvests by region, you can find it. Yes it is somewhat almanac like, but there is no wiki almanac (and no real world almanac would touch it). Yasth 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Or delete all. I don't see much differences with either of these to, for example, Comparison of virtual machines on the part of original research. Wikipedia is a great facility for this kind of stuff and it would be a shame to see these deleted. I can modify the table to better conform to WP:OR policies, but won't waste any more time before this argument is settled. --213.216.199.6 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both, per Yasth above. Writing a Wikipedia article always involves "research" in the broadest sense, namely the evaluation and compilation of information from various sources. This is not the kind of research prohibited by WP:OR. WP:NOT also doesn't apply. Furthermore, and more fundamentally, the articles are clearly seen as useful by many, and removing them would not help our readers in any conceivable way. The deletion therefore has to be rejected on principle, without regard to any legalistic bean counter interpretations of arcane policies. After all, the policies were written to serve only one ultimate goal: the creation of an encyclopedia useful to its readers. AxelBoldt 04:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.