Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD devices


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

List of HD DVD devices

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Outdated list of products - a lot of content already removed including prices in US dollars (from 2007!). HD DVD technology may be historic but to list every single product would violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as well as this list essentially being a product catalogue. Article stems on from recently deleted article Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination) Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per talkpage request as the discussion was short. Giving it more time to get a stronger consensus.
 * Delete as per recent AfD on a similar article as linked by the nominator; no evidence of notability Spiderone  23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for considering to not delete this content. Listings including prices was very useful and not "indiscriminate" but very particularly useful as a tool to help immediately identity what products were high-end and harder to find and which products were common. Perhaps this should have been pointed out in the article and the prices more clearly linked to sources and the reason for their inclusion made clear in the article.

Honestly I think fighting for the article's retension and trying to explain why the topic is notable seems like a lost cause. Sooner or later new editors will arbitrarily decide old tech isn't their thing and just delete the articles. Sooner or later it's trashed again so why bother? The whole wikipedia system seems run as a tyranny of arbitrary hierarchical editorial control. This article list is very small considering the short life of the technology so it's not like a list that continually grows. If the most popular models were only listed as examples back in the main article it would bloat that article which is possibly why it became its own article. The list article could definitely be improved by dividing it up into Popular, and Less Popular if we can find support links (besides the price reference implications) but again, why do the work if it's just going to be trashed on a editor's feel of what they think is notable that day? It seems odd that natural science articles get a pass for listing genus and species, e.g. home page linked article but if the subject is retro-tech suddenly an editor can easily decide "not notable" - yet more people dealt with the technologies on this list over this Wader bird. Sure the bird understanding is probably more important long-term but if the issue is "notability" then short lists of older tech, demonstrating exact nature of moderate breadth of different manufacturers supporting the tech, the length -- i.e. lifespan of the particular tech (year introduced), rarity (pricing) of the tech, etc. all seem notable. But not notable to people who don't care about the particular technology. Too bad we aren't bird lovers, where some lists are okay Best wishes Dcsutherland (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I find the list very poorly referenced, and of the few references present many are non-WP:RS. I don't think this is a fixable problem, it's a symptom of the lack of notability of the topic. I'm not sure it's possible to create a reasonably complete list that is adequately referenced. Anyone who finds this list useful is free to copy it to some other place under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License prior to deletion. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias become less useful if they contain indiscriminate unsourced data. --Pontificalibus 09:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per USER:Pontificalibus. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (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.