Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of online music lockers


 * 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. Consensus is that the current state of the article may be unsatisfactory - particularly in the color usage - but the content should be kept. Kubigula (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of online music lockers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not an internet shopping guide. This sort of thing belongs at Consumer Reports' website, not Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The companies and their services are certainly notable. This particular service is widely talked about in press articles.  Comparisons of online services and software have a long history on Wikipedia.  See all articles listed at Comparison of prefix search.  Such as Comparison of webmail providers, Comparison of open source software hosting facilities, Comparison of Linux distributions, Comparison of file archivers, Comparison of shopping cart software. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable and noteworthy companies, encyclopedic and certainly quite educational use of page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's two keep votes that open with remarks about notability, which is not mentioned in the nomination. I know it is normal to make notability based arguments at AFD, but this is the exception to that rule. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that the three services compared are not notable. They all have their own articles and I would not even think of nominating them for deletion. What is being suggested is that having a consumer-reports style side-by-side comparison, cmplete with red and green highlights to let you know who is good and who is bad, is a violation of the idea that Wikipedia is not a shopper's guide.  We might as well change the name of this article to "according to Wikipedia Google Play is awesome". Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it is the colors you object to? They are used this way on many other comparison articles to indicate feature support.  I couldn't find anything in the MoS about this type of article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do object to the colors, but that is something that could be fixed by editing. Why I think it should just be deleted is explained fairly clearly, with links, in the nomination. Whether there are other similar articles or not I do not think this is appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep with changes - The article itself could de with being renamed to remove 'comparison' from the name. The comparison should feature as part of a greater article about the storage of music on-line. Or the article could be merged into Cloud_storage potentially with a section for types of storage (documents, files, music e.t.c) and then the comparison could remain there.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 20:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss the title. This is a distinct category of products, and I don't think it should be merged into the very general article on cloud storage--that article would be unworkably large if it contained the details of everything that cloud storage can be used for. It might, however, be possible to combine with very closely related subjects and make it into a List of online media lockers" or some such title. Having list like this is not a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, because Consumer Reports is not a replacement,  at present, since it's in large part a subscription service--and because it very unfortunately and for me infuriatingly does not cover computer technology with the same degree of detail and specificity that we do;  and its purpose is different also--one of the key things it does is to make recommendations, which is of course totally outside our scope. And that's why this is not a shopping guide.  FWIW, I too very much object to the use of colors, especially bright colors, on this list and all similar lists, and perhaps we should have an RfC about limiting their use when necessary for emphasis or differentiation & using some less obtrusive shading to provide navigation on long lists--but that's not the question  here.  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to side with the nominator here, the individual stores are notable but their comparison is not. Where are the sources that give substantive coverage of the comparison? There are none because all they would do is what this article does, list individual features. Wikipedia can't be everything, and it should not be a shopping guide, and that's policy. Nominate the rest of comparisons, too, their existence proves nothing. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a good source: PC World, and a lesser source: Life Hacker. --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2012 (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.