Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of WAMPs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This comparison is being maintained as a consumer guide rather than an encyclopedia article, and is not encyclopedic in nature. None of the references actually compare the products in question; indeed, many of them are not directly comparable as they do not include the same components, and many of the rest differ very little except for in the specific version numbers of the bundled components. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep well referenced article. I have used these articles repeatedly, I find them to be encyclopedic and very informative. In the alternative, redirect/merge to LAMP. Ikip (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but notice that it doesnt give context for what WAMP is, and WAMP links to a disambig page. LAMP is obviously related. i think this page should be renamed WAMP, and be the article for this subject, speaking as a slightly computer literate layperson (and remember, the articles need to be understandable by most WP readers, not just specialists). I dont see this as a consumer guide, which would be a problem. If the nominators other issues are correct, could it not be fixed and improved to overcome it? I would not be able to judge these issues from my background.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the redirect. Having done my best to improve LAMP over the years, I'm fairly sure that there's little to be said on the subject other than "WAMP is a term occasionally used for the same stack but on Windows instead". I'm reluctant to accept that this article would be any better were it just moved to WAMP because it's still full of original research on low-profile hobbyist software. At the very least, any "WAMP distributions" which don't have their own articles should be culled as per WP:SAL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep good article, and I participed on this page and WAMP article is good too ! — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a good time to point out that one of the major problems with the article (which I only saw after AfDing it) is that the above user readded a whole load of unverifiable external material after other editors had cleaned it out. At the very least that should be undone, again per WP:SAL as above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)}
 * This program are known, so we need inform people which exist it is a comparison page ! — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have always thought that comparison articles shouldn't be deleted. These type of articles are encyclopedic. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolute Keep - Very useful article for the right visitor/researcher/reader. --AStanhope (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into WAMP article because if you were to add context to this comparison article, the comparison article would be longer and more complete than the main article. And really, the table isn't that large that being in the main article would hurt it. Admrboltz (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not for cleanup. One editorial change I would suggest is to move any external links into their own Website column per the norm for Comparison of ... articles as linking them in the leftmost column can confuse readers who expect the link to go to a related article. Leaving a red link in the leftmost column also allows for article creation or subtopic redirection to a larger article such as a possible Glossary of WAMPs. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.