Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypervideo

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypervideo

Appears to be a neologism or attempt to create a term. The word 'hypervideo' brings up a wide variety of matches on google, including many commercial products with the name, yet none of the first page results appear to match the definition given. Possible original research. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this page should remain, it seems that any video incorporating hyperlinks and embedded interactivity can be called hypervideo, and there are many sources on the web using this terminology. Of course I think the article should be expanded, but definitely not deleted. What other terms can be used to describe this development?

See http://www.fxpal.com/publications/FXPAL-PR-03-221.pdf and http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~l0f0954/academic/cpsc610/p-2.htm --69.113.47.203 14:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

To be an advocate of the devil, does this mean that all linkable content be preceeded with hyper? A clickable image becomes a hyperimage, a clickable filename becomes a hyperdownload, and so on? With respect, perhaps the most telling reason for why this article should be deleted comes from your own post which asks "What other terms can be used to describe this?", a question that seems to cement the suspicion that this is original research. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Originally, a "link" was a "hyperlink", and the "hyper" prefix was abandoned as the short form gained momentum and went mainstream. So I imagine "hypervideo" might end up being "video" if the technology becomes adopted en masse. With respect to the original reserarch and neologism argument, there are dozens of seperate entries that came up in a dogpile search, some academic and some commercial, dating back to 1998. While the definition is not yet standardized, it appears to be a term that is in use, and Wikipedia should offer information to those who seek to learn more about it. "Hotspotting" is also a term used in several articles in the media, though this term is too ambiguous and generic to describe the specific characteristics of this technology. --Maestro44 16:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• User's first edit.

Comment what we really need in order to keep it is some evidence that it is a term commonly in use. You refer to Dogpiled articles that demonstrate the use of the term - link to them in the article and verify that the term is not 'original research' or a 'neologism', and you'll have a very good case for the article being kept. I should warn you that when it comes to new terminology Wikipedia usually keeps terms that are very common, and the case you make should reflect this. Ziggurat 22:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that this is not a commercially self-promoting neologism. Dottore So 19:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted links to commercial publications, academic papers, several producers of hypervideo software and solutions... I could do this all day, what is the threshold needed to justify the term has been around for many years? Just because you may not have heard of it doesn't mean it's new. It might just mean that you're ignorant. That's why I'm spending the time writing this article, to inform people about something that is becoming very important. Take this deletion notice down.--Maestro44 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The deletion notice is there so that people can discuss whether to keep the article or not, and this page is here to debate that. Thank you for adding links, and hopefully this is sufficient to sway people to vote for a keep, but the notice is generally not removed until people have finished discussing it! Ziggurat 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep there is evidence that this is a term in use (e.g. [1], [2] ), but also that it is sometimes used as a copyrighted term (e.g. [3]). The article should reflect that it is also used by some companies, but there is sufficient evidence that this is a piece of genuine terminology. Ziggurat 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I clarified that there is a difference between "hypervideo" and "HyperVideo" or "Hyper Video". I also put in some links to the academic papers. --Maestro44 13:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• The author advised me of his rewrite and I feel the content now is quite good. My concern above, however, remains: this is an attempt to encyclopedify a commercial neologism, thereby granting it an apparently independent and objective substantiation. As an encyclopedic project, WP needs to be vigilant about reflecting, not helping to define, such concepts and while I note Ziggurat's point that there is evidence that this concept has been used, I think that this is a reflexion of commercial placement. I therefore maintain my vote above to delete, although I think the author should add whatever material s/he feels is relevant to the Hypermedia article, which is currently a stub. When the moderator comes to close this, I might suggest it be relisted for further discussion, seeing as this has attracted less attention (3 votes + author) than it deserves and raises some interesting points. Dottore So 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem adding some of this to the Hypermedia stub, even though I think it deserves an entry in its own right. Regarding the "neo" I think 1996 is quite a long time ago. Also, regarding commercial intent, why does Wikipedia have pages such as Windows vista? I see a double standard, since articles such as the one just mentioned are clearly new products, but this term is used by many in academia as well as various commercial entities (not just one as in the MS example). --Maestro44 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.