Deletion of HTML5 vs. Flash

Comment: Most of the sources provided by Lambiam are ''excellent'' and certainly demonstrate |notability. This is a great opportunity to provide encyclopedic coverage of a timely developing topic. I refactored the existing content and substantially cleaned up the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:OR|Original research, |personal essay, and |invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY||WP:CFORK)

Comment: per sources brought by Lambiam. Topic seems indeed to |meet GNG. The article needs at least a complete rewrite, but that's an editorial process that |per deletion policy it is not a reason to delete. Perhaps also a move to "Comparison between HTML5 and Flash" could help focus the issue, but again, not an AfD matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: Comparison of HTML5 and Flash is a completely legitimate topic. The HTML5 article does not offer a comparison with Flash, and the Adobe Flash article doesn't have more to say on the topic than this: "HTML 5 is gaining ground as a competitor to Flash: the canvas element assists animation, and text can be more easily synchronized with audio and video element timeupdate events." Therefore I don't think it is fair to call this a content fork – and merging the content of this article into a specific choice between HTML5 and Adobe Flash would give this unduly localized prominence. As to the complaint that this is |OR, most of the judgements expressed are properly sourced, and many of the remaining ones easily sourceable. I see no major problems that cannot be addressed by the usual Wikiprocess. &nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Delete but it is a legit topic but right now it :DustFormsWords has it the nail on the head its |Original research, |personal essay, and |invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. Some one can (and probably should) recreate it in way that abides by our policies. I think the article Office suite would be a good model on how to do the recreation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ESSAY||WP:CFORK)

Comment: as a personal |essay page, mostly |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY||WP:OR)

Comment: Aside from the weird example images and formatting the article has, it's pretty much nothing but an |opinion piece. (BTW, DustFormsWords, I changed your wikilink from  to  because I'm pretty sure ''that's'' what you were referring to.) '''Erpert
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTOPINION||WP:FORK||WP:CFORK)