Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of software that supports Vulkan

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of software that supports Vulkan[edit]

[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)

Same as the previous two unanimous AfDs that resulted in deletions in 2018 and 2019 (this has minor text additions that make a G4 CSD debatable). WP:INDISCRIMINATE and better suited for a category. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior two AFD discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creator here. The reason this keeps happening is that every time it's deleted, the list gets re-added to the already excessively long parent article (Vulkan (API)). If this is going to stick (and I'm not necessarily opposed to that; originally I just killed the list entirely, but then moved it to a separate article for the sake of avoiding drama), then its lack of existence needs to be made prominent in the parent (with e.g. {{category see also}}). I'd be very annoyed if this were deleted, the nominator (or any of the supports) didn't bother doing that, and this cycle repeated again next year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And fwiw the very same could (and should) apply to the infinitely-growing hardware section in the same parent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - IPs keep reinserting the game table shortly after the separate list gets deleted. [1] [2] I would support removing the hardware section as indiscriminate as well. If it aims to be as widespread in use as OpenGL, there's no need to document every instance of use on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pinging @TarkusAB:, because this exact discussion was had on the second AfD (the same user opened both previous AfDs). Users raising XfDs should be actively trying to prevent them recurring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but I will not participate in the discussion this time around. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Users raising XfDs should be actively trying to prevent them recurring." Is this a thing? People are busy and have limited attention. I don't think there's a broad responsibility among XFD nominators to make sure things they suggested deletion for stay deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a responsibility among editors to improve the encyclopedia, and not to waste the time of other editors. It isn't always possible to keep track of whether or not a page has been AfDed before, but if an editor is aware that this has happened, then it is markedly more useful to the project to attempt to head off future creations than to just circle back periodically and AfD them again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This likewise applies to drive-by AfDs, y'know. A stitch in time saves nine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a drive by really. The project actively monitors new page creation on a weekly basis within its scope. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. A graphics library that contends to be as widespread as OpenGL does not need every instance documented on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed since the last AfDs. If the issue is IPs repeatedly adding info to the main API page, that can be solved through RPP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RPP is for petty vandalism, not for cases where article splits are watched by people with their trigger-fingers on Twinkle but no desire to actually fix the underlying issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its also for preventing disruptive editing. For preventing things like editing against consensus, or violating NOT. Judging by the response here, I’m guessing any admin at WP:VG would gladly help you with this if you need it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been an admin myself for longer than you've been, but I'm very keen to hear how a semi-related wikiproject would prevent two (2) edits in two (2) years without the extreme overreaction of semiprotection better than one (1) note in the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as Lord SJones23 listed.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider that the non-game lists may have valid inclusion within the Vulkan article itself, particularly the game engines, so there's some possible merge (but very selective merge). --Masem (t) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before, without restoring the list/table to the article. There's a lot in this AFD grumbling about the fact that various editors simply haven't been aware the issue manifested in a different manner. Ok, fine. I'll personally watchlist Vulkin (API). But nothing was stopping anyone from removing the table from the article on "This was deleted on INDISCRIMINATE grounds at AFD" rather than splitting it out either. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2020 (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.