Talk:List of concept- and mind-mapping software/Archives/2020

Deletion of entries
I note comments here that programs that been deleted from this page due to not being considered notable enough to have their own WP page. Is there a WP policy stating that this is necessary for list and comparison pages? AFAIK such pages usually list any software relevant to the topic, as long as it is in active development and use. To leave out entries because they are not notable enough for a whole WP article could be considered promotion-by-omission of the programs that are listed, and thus a NPOV fail. Danylstrype (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on the stand-alone lists guideline, I would conclude that selection criteria are established by consensus on a per-list basis (within the general framework of that guideline). See :
 * "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever."


 * Because software lists tend to attract spam, many of them require that each item on the list must have its own article (no red links). That is obviously the case here, and consensus would be required to change that. Appearance on this list does not constitute endorsement or promotion; software that is famously bad could merit a Wikipedia article (I can think of examples but I won't name them!) and thereby appear on this list. Biogeographist (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an absolutely ridiculous criteria to exclude things that belong on this list from the list, because of a mis-applied notability criteria. People come to this list expecting it to be a "list of concept and mind-mapping software" ... Wikipedia was not created so as to prevent people from finding things out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:9B36:7B00:7506:CED3:93EE:E533 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:SAL. Wikipedia is not a directory of all software; there are other websites that serve that purpose. Biogeographist (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of this page appears to be that employees from the old guard use it as a means to undermine the reputation of more recently established concept mapping software, thereby maintaining their market share even while their software offerings have become out of date and irrelevant. If you go through the references of the articles that have enabled a piece of software to get on this list, many of the articles that establish the criteria of notability of these accepted entries don't even exist any more, and in just about every case they are years out of date. You have turned wikipedia into an archive of what used to be notable, rather than what is in fact currently most interesting. Wikipedia - "a repository of out-of-date information, guarded over by people who benefit from keeping it that way". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:9B02:4A00:E0B1:E48F:6A61:276E (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)