Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTP payload formats

RTP payload formats

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of RTP payload formats.

I agree with User:Pppery that this article is sort of a list, but disagree that this is inappropriate. The table that constitues the bulk of the article gives context and explanation, refuting the argument on directories and catalogs. Instead, it describes a notable subject: the fact that there exist plethora of RTP payloads. It serves as a stepping stone for further investigation and research for those with further interest.

I also disagree with User:MarioGom that a redirect should suffice and with User:Wcquidditch that the existence is sufficiently described in the main article. The referenced section only briefly summarises the large number of different formats.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment here (until now) has purely been deletion sorting; I have (and had) no opinion on the article. It is Anonrfjwhuikdzz that says that material at the main article — which I will note is Real-time Transport Protocol — is sufficient. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be find with a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not convinced and exhaustive list is appropriate for wikipedia as we're not supposed to be a directory/catalog --- that's a job for the RFC series. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC Editor only lists all RFCs and makes them available. It is not a function of the RFC Editor to present overviews per subject of any kind. The overview presented in RTP payload formats, compiled by many editors, stands on its own and has become a de facto source on the subject. This is reflected in the number of visitors of the page. Deletion would be a disservice to the public, IMHO; a rename better reflects the nature of the article.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NLIST: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Rename to List of RTP payload formats if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats per MarioGom. There is already a section in RTP main page. This looks like a list and notability is not really clear for a stand alone article. But it can be integrated to Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Standards_documents. I also do not think wikipedia is a repsitory of stuff, when external links can be used for a database that has such standards. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, Do you think that the WP:LISTN standard is met? If so, would you be happy if we renamed the article to make it clear that it is a list and closed this AfD.

As a stand-alone article, it sounds like you're making a WP:NOT argument. What section of that policy do you think applies here? I guess WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be the most likely mapping for repository of stuff but I personally don't see a clear match to this situation. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this meets WP:NLIST. Renaming may not help. I think an external link would be better than using Wikipedia as a depository. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MarioGom and Ramos1990 have suggested redirecting which I assume means they don't believe we should have a stand-alone article/list on this topic. Without providing a reason for this preference, I assume/hope whoever closes this discussion will not give these opinions much weight. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explained more on my reasoning. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced this article is not acting as a directory for RFC articles/RTP payloads. Yes there is some discussion of these formats as a group which would qualify this for NLIST, but the arguments in favor of deletion/redirection have centered around what WP:ISNOT.

Outside of the opening summary there is not much providing context for the protocols. I don't understand the reasoning from @Dandorid that the table provides context or explanation to these protocols. These are just very basic summaries of the protocol specifications from my reading, but where is the context about development and uses that makes these entries something more than WP:NOTPLOT? Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA, so why not just link to their website in the main RTP protocol article for people with further interest? The only parts of the table that provided additional context were certain descriptions detailing changes in payload type/the reasons for reserved blocks but those specific instances could easily be added to the prose at Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats.

All of that said, I do want to change my vote to redirct with the target being the most appropriate section of Real-time Transport Protocol. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge with some other article, but absolutely don't delete the content. This article just helped me out today. Félix An (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates my point. Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA would be great to have, but I doubt it actually exists, Ramos1990. I believe this article summarises the wealth of options, in a way that a picture tells more than a thousand words. If you would summarise this page somewhere in a section of Real-time transport protocol you would need more than a thousand words to do the summary right.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Keep or Rename. There is a dynamic that some fail to see here: Wikipedia is a primary source of information to many people. A sort of low information entropy: a concentration, a density, brought together by people that felt a certain need to do so. Destroying a page like this increases information entropy, which leaves you with a greater burden of finding the information (which undoubtedly exists in many places) yourself, and you only get it in bits and pieces. Most likely, somebody will recreate this page somewhere in the future, for the same reasons User:Sergeymasushko had when creating RTP payload formats. — _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an utterly meaningless argument - by this logic one should never delete anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the main idea of WP:Inclusionism on Wikipedia, and I support inclusionism. After all, WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we already have Britannica, which is generally more reliable than Wikipedia (see WP:CW), and only chooses the most notable topics. I think the advantage of Wikipedia is that it covers more niche topics compared to a traditional encyclopedia such as Britannica, which is why I'm an inclusionist. I usually read Britannica to get a broad overview of more popular topics, and I use Wikipedia for more niche topics like computing (this article) and railways. Félix An (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If none of my arguments make any sense whatsoever (I guess that is what you mean by utterly meaningless) then, by your logic, you should delete all articles and do away with Wikipedia altogether. — _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: What's the justification for relisting this a second time? We're rehashing standard inclusionist/deletionist arguments and I'm sure you're aware we won't reach consensus on that here and continuing to discuss it does not foster goodwill between editors. There are no delete votes and it is pretty clear to me that the article meets WP:NLIST. The proposed merge or redirect suggestions can be worked on outside AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that we don't yet have consensus among the editors who are advancing policy-based arguments. The closer would need to discount the last two "keep" opinions. This means there is still no agreement as to keep or redirect. Sandstein 06:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An and Dandorid: can you offer us a policy-based reason why we should not delete this article? ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandorid Will you also please strike one of your bolded votes? I am seeing a keep and two bolded renames from you. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]