Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Composite monitor (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composite monitor

[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 WP:SYNTH, there is no such thing as a "composite monitor". This is just a video monitor with a composite video jack (basically a television, but sometimes a distinction is made since a video monitor may lack a tv tuner). Nearly all video monitors since the 1980s have a composite video jack, making this article pointless. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussion in the first nomination for deletion is just as relevant now as it was originally, so I won't repeat the details; the votes then should be considered now. It's mainly a historical issue, but composite(-only) monitors were commonly used with computers in earlier days, and less expensive than RGB ones. A Google search for "composite monitor" -wikipedia gets over 30,000 hits, a significant number considering that these monitors have not been made for many years. I think I still have one somewhere, a computer monitor with composite input only. It is indeed "a video monitor with a composite video jack" (and associated circuitry), in the same way as a "hatchback" is a car with a rear door that opens upwards. Added at 16:30, 22/5: I hadn't looked through the article properly, and now agree with comments in the earlier discussion that it needs cleaning up. Pol098 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A monitor is not defined by the type of jack it has. In fact the same monitor can have multiple types of jacks (then what type of monitor is it?). Most video monitors had/have composite jacks, most computer monitors did not.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computer monitors with multiple types of input circuit were sold as MultiSync monitors; I bought quite a lot of them. Monitors were named and sold as "composite monitors", e.g. the "AppleColor Composite Monitor". Pol098 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brief search in InfoWord, PC Mag and Amiga Format magazines shows several adverts or articles mentioning "Composite monitor" in the 80s/early 90s. Maybe a selective merge to another article could solve nominator´s concerns? Pavlor (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep:~~Delete~~Keep: Others have covered the hits. I remember the term well from the late 70's early 80's, but the earlier RGB comment also clicks a memory. My immediate thought wsa CGA Color Graphics Adapter) where this is mentioned ~~but not wikilinked currently~~, and its also mentioned on the IBM Portable Personal Computer plus maybe somewhere else. The term was in common use back then, even if argued that it was strictly technically correct. The tone of the nom. indicates a vexatiousness and I am calling for a speedy keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (Switch !vote various time including latest at this timestamp). Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually checked "What links here" on the wrong page, Special:WhatLinksHere/Composite_monitor (per the links) shows this is at least a medium impact delete and therefore a poor choice for simple deletion. The nom. completely failed to mention this in the nom. but rather ranted off something like I often do with their personal opinion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark:There are roughly 10-15 actual articles that link to this, wikipedia is not going to collapse because of the deletion of this article. Rather than attack me, why don't we talk about how this article completely fails WP:GNG. Hits mean nothing when it comes to notability (see WP:GOOGLETEST). The only sources anyone has come up with are some old advertisements and a owner's manual which is NOT significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by GNG. Composite Monitor is at best just a marketing term.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10 I am not currently choosing to fecked off to on some sort of hunt to prove your allegations false and get beaten up by my wife for neglecting her. If you want to do the nomination you do the rightful legwork please. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark:My nomination is solid, sourcing that would prove the subject's notability simply does not exist. I am not required to prove that sourcing does not exist. If you want this article so badly, the WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN is on you, not me. Stop deflecting and address the sourcing for this article. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10: Yes the fucking ONUS and fucking BURDEN is on others which is fucking stressful. Fucking thanks! Is this going to end up as a keep. Undoubtably in my view and I suggest you withdraw. There seems no learning on your part from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schroeder (constructor) only this case is likely stronger. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The incivility and continued personal attacks are unacceptable, so keep it up we can go to WP:ANI, the choice is yours. And you still have not put forth a legitimate argument for keeping this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I see the continued failure to bring up things to AfD not tagged for notablity is the problem. That choice is certainly yours! And aren't you in such a big hurry for the sources after the big rush to AfD for a very long standing article? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no requirement to tag an article for notability before going to AfD, so how is that a problem? People have already had over 15 years to add sources to this poor quality article and have failed to do so. How many more do you need?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Badger, badger me to add sources to that article. Must admit co-incidently for a different reason I've rescued Bunce 1991 of the Shottsford Forum but no direct on that as it happens so its for the tip unless I work out how to send it to that great library in the cloud by way other than the incinerator. How about time to get Bletchley of St. Pancras in a Covid-19 safe manner? Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to merge to composite video, since the two things go hand-in-hand. I see lots of usage of the term in computer literature from the 1990s, but a single article tying it all together makes more sense than two. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more. Any thoughts on a merge, as suggested by Mangoe?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I still support deletion, not merging. What is there to merge anyway? Its a bunch of unsourced content. The only sources are advertisements.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will obviously assist the nominator's AfD statistics if the article is deleted. The comment about adverts in general is actually quite correct as the WP:COMMONNAME is more usually used by end users than techies,(apart from I believe from Apple in the old days), but is more relevant for some recent SBCs such as (some) versions the Raspberry Pi which have suitable output. More specifically the source relating to the Bobcat's 35721 in the article is not actually what I myself would call an advertisement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really should just stop commenting here. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality about AfD stats is not helpful. If "Composite monitor" was the COMMONNAME, then why aren't there tons of sources using it? And I have no idea what this Bobcat 35721 you're talking about is. What I do know is one of the sources in the article is literally an advertisement from a shopping website.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Well you seemed to have changed from the claim "The only sources are advertisements" to the claim "What I do know is one of the sources in the article is literally an advertisement from a shopping website" which is a substantial difference in claim. The date of the advertisement is to a degree an interesting thing here.

At least I could be bovvered to link rot to determine what is was and to determine the quote as written was not supported.  I shall now take myself as forced off the AfD discussion and leave you to have the last comment.  This will be an ongoing battle for me for the next couple of months with this article, or the merge if that is how it goes.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd prefer keep but in the event of closer choosing merge I would grudgingly undertake to perform a merge within 7 days; the target being less focused on the monitor angle. I have articles I'd prefer to be working on such as Guide horse and spin offs and if they have to be skimped that's how it will be. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim that there's no such thing is blatantly false. There are numerous books from the early PC era explaining what they are, the relevant standards such as NTSC and the resulting programming issues, as compared with the RGB monitor. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly to composite video as suggested above. The article was unsourced for 16 years until this discussion was opened, most of it remains so, and the new citations are unsatisfactory. Someone has not long ago added a "source capable of sourcing some of the content", but with no citations to it in the main text. Leaving large amounts of unsourced and unverified text just lying around is unacceptable, and, unless someone can make significant improvements in the short term (i.e. not 16 years), said content should be removed asap (WP:NOW). Whoever can find reliable sources can just undo the redirect and pick up from where this was left. Avilich (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungstnk (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.