Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of instant messaging clients (2nd nomination)


 * 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. withdrawn by nominator Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of instant messaging clients
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Similar to this battleship AFD and this aircraft carrier AFD, this is a comparison article. While all the material in this article may be verifiable (just like the AFDs above), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a collection of statistics. The previous AFD was back in 2007, and all the respondents based their reasons on verifiability (which I addressed above) or places not covered by policy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This article is obviously not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is a stand-alone list and is perfectly allowed in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:LIST or in stand-alone lists does it mention comparison articles? I don't see any mention. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a the wrong question. The correct question is: Where in WP:LIST there is mention of adding auxiliary useful information to lists being prohibited? The answer is: nowhere. Comparisons are perfectly allowed. What? Don't you like it? Fleet Command (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Article is well referenced. Likewise, the article is well maintained as shown by the revision history statistics which shows that the article goes no longer than one (1) day without an individual editing the page as shown here .  In addition the page shows 22,905 views within the last 30 days, as shown here .  Finally, looks like we have a 153 Wikipedia’s watching the page, as shown here .  All-in-all looks like a well maintained – useful list and not just; ..." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information''.  ShoesssS Talk 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Verifiability arguments were countered in my nomination, and your other points have no basis in policy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep meets all criteria for both WP:List and WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:LIST does it allow "comparison lists"? I don't see them mentioned in the "types of lists" section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A list is a list is a list. Where specifically are they disallowed? It is just more compact to display a list as a matrix. If you want to lobby for banning comparative lists, start a campaign at WP:RFC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a place in which every new innovation (such as adding useful comparison data to raw stand-alone lists) or content type must be authorized by a higher authority. Fleet Command (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's comparisons to the other two comparison articles do not constitute a good argument to delete. The battleship AFD compared just two battleships, whereas this article is attempting to compare all the most widely-used clients. As for the aircraft carrier AFD, the decision was to keep. The article does not present indiscriminate information, but rather exactly that information described by the article title. The clients mentioned therein are notable, with many having articles. The information is also verifiable. —Lowellian (reply) 03:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Fleet Command (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then, it appears consensus is against my view – I can accept that and will withdraw my nomination. :-) Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:34, 15 March 2011 (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.