Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Waterfall Chart Microsoft Office add-ins


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of Waterfall Chart Microsoft Office add-ins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All information is either pulled directly from a product advertisement or is based on original research. I don't think secondary source material would be possible for something this specific. Even with prices removed it reads like a sales catalog. Some of this could possibly be moved into Waterfall chart, though I'm not sure how much without it being a blatant product advertisement. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete most comparison pages as WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the addins listed have WP articles or appear to meet GNG, and as an OR list/comparison of entirely non-notable items this should be deleted.Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's useful article. If I was looking add-in for making waterfall charts, this article I would really helped. May be including info about prices is too much for WP, but other content needed for users. So I disagree with deletion Allenclarck85 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear WP:OR from the selection of comparison criteria and exclusive reliance on primary sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree it's useful for reasons Allenclarck85 mentioned, and I appreciate his work creating the article, but it's still original research based on advertisements. Comparison articles like these are extremely easy to skew for promotional purposes, and require added vigilance to assure objectivity and neutrality. ––Agyle (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed References have been added Allenclarck85 11:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenclark85 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete I don't readily see the primary sources as supporting the content in the article. The article is in dire need of WP:RS before the claim that WP:OR is null. Mkdw talk 21:24, 27 January 2014 (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.