Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of loopers


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of loopers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a product catalog or buyer's guide. There are comparison matrices of notable topics having Wikipedia articles, but the items being compared here are all linked to external product pages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. We allow comparison lists of non-notable products as long as the topic is notable.  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (I know that's not an argument you're supposed to make) but check it out dude: Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination) -- I can name a dozen more just like that one, too.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 02:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? Preemptively mentioning an essay that makes a point doesn't transform it into support for the opposite point or even render it ineffective. WP:NOTCATALOG applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry dude, I'm just telling it like it is. I think all of these bullshit lists should be deleted but it just won't happen.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make people argue against positions that you don't hold.. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a product guide. There are other off- and on-line publications that do that much better than we ever could.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So how is this different to say Comparison_of_multitrack_recording_software? Maybe this needs to be moved to Incubation rather than straight deletion. Mattfret (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would "vote" to delete that one too. There are professional publications whose main purpose is to compare these kind of products. A person would be much smarter to go there for the information than to an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." WP is outstanding for many things but not for this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mattfret, see what JBsupreme and I were talking about before: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, I just removed the price column from that article for the same reason I removed it from this one. I considered nominating it for deletion too, but there is one significant difference between that article and this: most of the products in that one are linked to and covered by Wikipedia articles, with only a few redlinks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh good work on that... heres some more comparisons for you to remove prices from Comparison_of_FTP_client_software, Comparison_of_web_browsers, Comparison_of_web_server_software, Comparison_of_e-mail_clients. Come on tear them all down. The justifiable reason for prices is to rank the various things being compared. For the person seeking to compare things, price is an important factor. Mattfret (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why prices are useful to people seeking to compare products. But you are ignoring the point that it's useless to put prices in an encyclopedia article when prices are extremely volatile and depend on many factors, so that any specific numbers given are pretty meaningless, and the point that as useful as price lists may be, Wikipedia is expressly not a venue for serving that purpose, just as, despite the fact that they are useful, Wikipedia is not a place for posting this week's cable television schedule or the 2009-2010 course catalog for XYZ University. Please read the references I've already provided that explain why these matrices may not be appropriate here, and the prices certainly aren't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the prices from the other articles you mentioned (except the e-mail one, which I haven't done yet, but there most of the items are free anyhow. Also, I noticed that except in the FTP client article there were practically no external links to product websites (except for the occasional documentation article or licensing agreement), and in the FTP article most of the items weren't externally linked. I've removed all the problematic external links. In the article under discussion here, none of the items being compared is connected to a Wikipedia article, so this one differs from the others in a critical respect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, collective spam. Fails WP:ELNO, WP:SAL, WP:NOTDIR, and just about everything else applicable to a comparison list. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (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.