Deletion of Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units

Comment: We have lists of products of other major companies (see List of Olympus products, List of IBM products, although some of these could be improved and this would be something of an  argument.) I don't quite understand "...as no conclusions are drawn from the "comparison"." Is WP supposed to endorse some product here? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: I understand that the result will almost certainl be to keep this article, but I still believe that would be against policy, so I want to clarify some misconceptions above.  As far as I can see, the majority of keep arguments focus on the issue of "usefulness."  As far as I know, that is not nor has it ever been a criteria for keeping information on Wikipedia.  In fact,  explicitly and clearly rejects a large amount of information that is undeniably useful.  For instance, I would find it extremely useful to have a full, complete list of the corporate phone numbers of all major internet service providers in the United States.  Such a list could not be found elsewhere on the internet (as it would be a national list not fully and easily compiled anywhere).  However, DIRECTORY explicitly rejects this as not being appropriate to an encyclopedia.  Similarly, I would find it useful if major experts in the field of Rhetoric were able to post information about their own current research in one easy to research, organized page.  That, too, would be unacceptable per WEBHOST.  In other words, being useful is not and cannot be a sufficient criteria for keeping information on Wikipedia.  If it were, one could easily argue that every available piece of data should be completely replicated here, as every piece of data (even false data) is potentially useful to someone.  Finally, with regards to the advertising point; I was unaware that some of these are so old, so I guess I should have used the word "promotional" rather than advertising; note, for instance, that we reject external links and even just informative sites if we deem that the primary purpose of such a link is to promote the outside site.  I argue that the nature of product specs without context is inherently promotional.  So, for me, while it's clear that an overwhelming ''majority'' of people "voting" here support keeping this and associated pages, I believe ''policy'' explicitly states that the pages must go
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: probably all, although I haven't looked at any besides this one; if they're in the same format, they should be treated equally).  At best, this is a list of statistical data collected together into some nice tables.  Helpful information, sure, but  in the least bit encyclopedic.  At worst, one could argue this is a form of |adverstising, as the "article"'s  purpose is to list detailed specifications of products without any context.  Some above mention things like "it's an organizational list"--no, no it's not--if it were, it would list only the name of each item with links--instead, it's full specs.  Another mentions that Wikipedia is "a database for all people."  No, no it's not--it's an encyclopedia, not a database.  Our job is not to collect every fact in the world, and it never has been (insofar as policy and guidelines are concerned).  Others are concerned that converting this to prose will make comparisons more difficult--good, I say.  Again, we aren't here for people to look up details to do comparison shopping.   exists for a very good reason--because the project needs clear limitations on what counts as encyclopedic information and what does not.  That some find this useful is not enough; I'm sure there must be some that would find every possible piece of info (true or false) to be potentially useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:ADVERT||WP:NOT)