Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of stackable switches


 * 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. There is clear consensus to delete this article. The nominator also cited a discussion about a large number of similar articles. First, thank you for not nominating all of them at once; those kinds of mass AfDs are often difficult to manage. I gather the intent was to use this a a trial balloon for the whole series. I don't think this AfD should be taken to establish any kind of precedent for the others. I would encourage you to continue to evaluate them one at a time. Just my personal opinion on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of stackable switches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating this article for deletion after lengthily discussion here:. Many other articles were mentioned in the discussion, but let's start with this one and see what the consensus is. The main arguments raised in the said discussion are: Please, do not make arguments in the discussion like "There are other similar articles". The goal is to delete all such articles, and this one is just a start. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles with lists of products, like this one, tend to be biased toward certain manufacturers, as they do not contain all products. This list, for example, does not contain even half of known stackable switches, which turns it into an advertisement. Listing some manufacturers and products, but not others is not neutral, and lists like this can never be neutral, so it should be deleted.
 * List is outdated, and it is almost impossible to make it up-to date, which makes it per se incorrect. Article that is per se incorrect should be deleted.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per the above provided nomination proposal, as well as per the above linked discussion. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * delete we are not Consumer Reports or any of its IT equivalents, and that's the only reasonable location for such a chart. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;I don't see a policy-based argument for deletion here. We are allowed (and encouraged) to delete non-notable articles, attack pages, hoaxes, etc., but there is no policy I'm aware of that encourages the deletion of articles that are out-of-date or incomplete.  We fix those, not delete them.  See WP:DELETE. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, the arguments raised above are totally policy-based. They are based on the WP:DELETE policy. Reason for deletion No. 14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Certain editors think that this article is not suitable for encyclopedia because it is promotional (WP:PROMOTION, another policy), and because it is impossible to maintain its accuracy. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this list of switches is a clear example of WP:PROMOTION, as it contains less than a half of all available stackable Ethernet switches. Something like that tends to turn into advertising; it we had an out-of-date Comparison of D-Link stackable switches article, that would've been a different story, as it wouldn't compare products from different manufacturers.  Also, what's the value of having such an article?  To me, it has very little of the actual encyclopedic value. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The main problem is that this is not an encyclopedia article, in particular I think WP:DISCRIMINATE applies, in particular the paragraph of "Excessive listings of statistics". It looks like a table that one would find in a technological consumer magazine, but without the benefit of an article to put the table in context. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:12, 27 July 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.