Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Adobe Flash


 * 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   merge to Adobe Flash. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Adobe Flash

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see what use this article is. There is a serious citation problem, either by use of out-dated or unreliable sources (e.g. blogs), if used at all. Going down the TOC:


 * 1) Usability: some of this is probably salvageable for use in Adobe Flash. The third paragraph isn't sourced at all.
 * 2) Accessibility: again, germane to Adobe Flash, but not a criticism.
 * 3) Content control: no sources
 * 4) LSOs: no criticism
 * 5) Freeness: no sources, and not really relevant.
 * 6) Security: come on, it's a piece of software. Of course it's going to have bugs. Not really a criticism or relevant, though.
 * 7) ...on various platforms: no sauces
 * 8) Indexability: don't see any criticism; outdated with Flash CS3.
 * DRM: no sources.

I can see how this article may be useful in Adobe Flash, but on its own, I don't think it's sustainable.

Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge back into Adobe Flash article, but only keep the criticisms that have been made in reliable secondary sources. I've had a look at the main Flash article and it seems that this was split off from the main article when the criticisms section became too big. Most of the article, however, seems to be users' own criticisms, which is bloating the articles too much. As it stands, this is too much of a POV fork. Will reconsider if article is properly referenced. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not be bold and edit and then merge it? You'd have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Partial merge: In so far as the criticism is backed by genuine reliable sources and is not overplayed to give a misleading impression, it should be merged back to the main article. I can't think of a good reason to fork the criticism of any subject into its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge any relevant, sourced info into Adobe Flash per DanielRigal.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge per above, unless someone wants to find current, RS criticisms and excise what isn't sourced, making this an appropriate sub-article per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Adobe Flash.--Kozuch (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2008 (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.