Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of apps with Google Cast support

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of apps with Google Cast support

[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)

Previously nominated for deletion in 2014 with low participation and very weak keep !votes. A clear case of WP:NOTDATABASE that fails WP:LISTN and is too ephemeral to be properly maintained. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Products, Technology, and Internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the film and television projects notified? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured there might be an interest for people who follow those topics since Google Cast is used to view film and television; I would expect film to be notified if there was an AfD for movie projector, for example. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD occurred when the article had a different name. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of apps with Chromecast support.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I supported the deletion of this article 10 years ago, and I support it even more now. Chromecast and Google Cast are no longer the flashy new things they were when they first launched 10 years ago. Tech publications don't pay much attention to Google Cast support now that it has become ubiquitous. As such, our ability to reliably source apps' compatibility with the protocol, across multiple platforms, both when support is added or removed, is compromised. This list will never be anything more than an incomplete and out of date one. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Google Cast: the target already has a long list of compatible devices. This list of compatible apps would be a perfect fit there, perhaps as a collapsible table. The table itself is well verified, and the issue of independent notability is avoided by such a merge. Owen× ☎ 15:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these cites are years old, and several of the citations are to the Google Play Store and iTunes, which almost certainly will be difficult to maintain or will go out of date. By my count, there's only one citation to a secondary source dated 2023, and none dated 2022. I think merging also doesn't solve the NOTDATABASE issue (this is basically analogous to NOTCHANGELOG cases). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all excellent arguments to not keeping this article as a standalone page. But for a section in an existing well-sourced article like Google Cast, all we need is for the information to be verifiable and encyclopedic, just like the list of compatible devices already included in the target page. I think an article about the Google Cast functionality would be incomplete without a mention of the apps that support it. Whether we need an exhaustive table or just a mention of a few of the more notable apps is debatable, which is why I proposed a collapsible table for this section, so as not to clutter the page. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with merging compatible apps that have SIGCOV in RSes, but otherwise, I think including an incomplete list of potentially outdated information about apps is not useful to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Individual items in a list do not require independent SIGCOV for each, only verifiability. Notability is only needed for the overall subject where the list is included, which we already have in the target. But I agree that any item that can't be verified should be removed during the proposed merge. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what that means in practice; given that many of the sources are years old, would the proposal be to add {{as of}} tags throughout the list, or would the proposal be to try to verify that in February 2024 each item on the list is still Google compatible, and only keep those that can be verified? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a current compatibility guide. We keep articles about software that ran on defunct operating systems, and console games that played on platforms that are long gone. A list of apps that have, at some point, supported Chromecast or Google Cast would be appropriate and in line with other encyclopedic material we rightly keep. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from but my !vote is still to delete. These sorts of lists should be useful for readers. A potentially outdated list of random apps (such as "Big Web Quiz for Chromecast") that have at some point been compatible with Chromecast/Google Cast is not useful and amounts to a changelog. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, right? I've been looking for a new game for my Atari 2600, but it turns out that almost all the games listed here have been out of stock for decades. Wikipedia should really stop advertising itself as a useful, up-to-date product catalog. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list is distinguishable. First, it meets NLIST, LISTCRIT, and LISTPURP because the vast majority of items on the list appear to be notable and the items as a whole are treated as a group by reliable sources. It's not just an unencyclopedic directory of games. Second, there's no risk of that information going out of date and the list could be made complete if it is not already, since nobody is making new Atari 2600 games as far as I am aware (and if they are, it would be a rare occurrence, making updating the list easy). By contrast, there are millions of apps on the Google and Apple app stores, some of which might change their compatibilities or lose functionality as a result of system or other updates. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't see any encyclopaedic value in a list of applications that support some proprietary format. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Should I start writing a list of all applications with Bluetooth support or all desktop towers with a disc drive? I don't really see what purpose this serves. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2024 (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.