Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ARM Cortex-M development tools


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

List of ARM Cortex-M development tools

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As pointed out at Articles for deletion/List of uncertainty propagation software, this list similarly violates WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software,  and Lists.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  03:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Content from ARM Cortex-M article was move to this new "List of ARM Cortex-M development tools" article on July 18, 2013 to allow growing room and shorten the original article, per edit comments. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ARM Cortex-M: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
 * List of ARM Cortex-M development tools

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure about the possibility of a merge. Azuredivay (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTCATALOGUE. No merge. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * KEEP - stop this sillyness about a list article shouldn't be a list. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep; web development is not the only type of software engineering, and plenty of people discuss the topic of developing for microcontrollers. jp×g🗯️ 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article you linked is a very brief, high-level overview of the ARM architecture. The page up for deletion is a laundry list of any old piece of software or hardware that's geared toward development on one specific family of ARM processors.  I fail to see how that's relevant here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's spend thirty seconds on Google Scholar, specifically looking for sources that cover development tools, specifically, for ARM Cortex-M processors, and see what we can find for just one search on the front page.
 * General resources (tools, etc):
 * ARM toolchains, flows:
 * IDEs, debuggers:
 * RTOS:
 * Compilers, development suites etc:
 * jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of that really helps though. As I said below, this page is merely a laundry list of pieces of software and hardware, the vast majority of which is primary-sourced to websites about said software or hardware. Taking the various Definitive Guide books in your search results above, these necessarily use some of these as tools to guide the reader through, but it's not the focus.  Per WP:NLIST, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."  And I don't think you're going to find anything like that.  Even on the off-chance you can find someone somewhere that does, it's still not really enough; this list very much falls into the spirit of what WP:NOT is all about.  As is, the list is a giant pile of WP:OR, as editors are the ones who must do the research to find these things.  All together, this is a really strong case for deletion I think.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not make sense. If sources exist for List of IDEs and debuggers for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also List of toolchains and development workflows for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also Real-time operating system development for ARM Cortex-M processors, all of which are subtopics of this article, then these must necessarily be viable sources for a combined article covering all of the constituent subjects.
 * This is the kind of musical-chairs reasoning that results in the wholesale deletion of giant swaths of content: people will say to "split articles out because of size concerns" or "merge all articles into one because the coverage on each is scant", creating list and overview articles with a disjunct scope, then a few years later people will say "delete because none of the sources cover the specific overall topic as notable".
 * If this article has a disjunct scope, it can be moved to a better title, but no, it should not be deleted, and specifically there is no basis to conclude that the topic of development for these processors is not a notable subject. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But sources don't exist for your red-linked lists, so I'm not sure how that helps either. It's not a notable topic, because Wikipedia does not collect lists of names of products, nor is it a link farm, nor is it a guidebook, nor a vehicle for original research, nor is it anything that this list would fall under.  This sort of list dreck is routinely deleted, as it should be.  There's zero encyclopedic content in here, and it should be excised, not split, not merged, but deleted.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so to recap, my argument consists of providing 24 specific citations with page numbers to five different sources, and your argument consists of saying that "there are no sources"? Am I missing something? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't find any reasonable sources for this topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * IDEs, debuggers:
 * RTOS:
 * Compilers, development suites etc:
 * <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of that really helps though. As I said below, this page is merely a laundry list of pieces of software and hardware, the vast majority of which is primary-sourced to websites about said software or hardware. Taking the various Definitive Guide books in your search results above, these necessarily use some of these as tools to guide the reader through, but it's not the focus.  Per WP:NLIST, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."  And I don't think you're going to find anything like that.  Even on the off-chance you can find someone somewhere that does, it's still not really enough; this list very much falls into the spirit of what WP:NOT is all about.  As is, the list is a giant pile of WP:OR, as editors are the ones who must do the research to find these things.  All together, this is a really strong case for deletion I think.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not make sense. If sources exist for List of IDEs and debuggers for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also List of toolchains and development workflows for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also Real-time operating system development for ARM Cortex-M processors, all of which are subtopics of this article, then these must necessarily be viable sources for a combined article covering all of the constituent subjects.
 * This is the kind of musical-chairs reasoning that results in the wholesale deletion of giant swaths of content: people will say to "split articles out because of size concerns" or "merge all articles into one because the coverage on each is scant", creating list and overview articles with a disjunct scope, then a few years later people will say "delete because none of the sources cover the specific overall topic as notable".
 * If this article has a disjunct scope, it can be moved to a better title, but no, it should not be deleted, and specifically there is no basis to conclude that the topic of development for these processors is not a notable subject. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But sources don't exist for your red-linked lists, so I'm not sure how that helps either. It's not a notable topic, because Wikipedia does not collect lists of names of products, nor is it a link farm, nor is it a guidebook, nor a vehicle for original research, nor is it anything that this list would fall under.  This sort of list dreck is routinely deleted, as it should be.  There's zero encyclopedic content in here, and it should be excised, not split, not merged, but deleted.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so to recap, my argument consists of providing 24 specific citations with page numbers to five different sources, and your argument consists of saying that "there are no sources"? Am I missing something? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't find any reasonable sources for this topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of that really helps though. As I said below, this page is merely a laundry list of pieces of software and hardware, the vast majority of which is primary-sourced to websites about said software or hardware. Taking the various Definitive Guide books in your search results above, these necessarily use some of these as tools to guide the reader through, but it's not the focus.  Per WP:NLIST, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."  And I don't think you're going to find anything like that.  Even on the off-chance you can find someone somewhere that does, it's still not really enough; this list very much falls into the spirit of what WP:NOT is all about.  As is, the list is a giant pile of WP:OR, as editors are the ones who must do the research to find these things.  All together, this is a really strong case for deletion I think.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not make sense. If sources exist for List of IDEs and debuggers for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also List of toolchains and development workflows for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also Real-time operating system development for ARM Cortex-M processors, all of which are subtopics of this article, then these must necessarily be viable sources for a combined article covering all of the constituent subjects.
 * This is the kind of musical-chairs reasoning that results in the wholesale deletion of giant swaths of content: people will say to "split articles out because of size concerns" or "merge all articles into one because the coverage on each is scant", creating list and overview articles with a disjunct scope, then a few years later people will say "delete because none of the sources cover the specific overall topic as notable".
 * If this article has a disjunct scope, it can be moved to a better title, but no, it should not be deleted, and specifically there is no basis to conclude that the topic of development for these processors is not a notable subject. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But sources don't exist for your red-linked lists, so I'm not sure how that helps either. It's not a notable topic, because Wikipedia does not collect lists of names of products, nor is it a link farm, nor is it a guidebook, nor a vehicle for original research, nor is it anything that this list would fall under.  This sort of list dreck is routinely deleted, as it should be.  There's zero encyclopedic content in here, and it should be excised, not split, not merged, but deleted.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so to recap, my argument consists of providing 24 specific citations with page numbers to five different sources, and your argument consists of saying that "there are no sources"? Am I missing something? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't find any reasonable sources for this topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Okay, so to recap, my argument consists of providing 24 specific citations with page numbers to five different sources, and your argument consists of saying that "there are no sources"? Am I missing something? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't find any reasonable sources for this topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. At least ARM toolchains and RTOSs are discussed as lists extensively (example 1, example 2, example 3). My impression of the sources is that it might be possible to develop some of these lists into proper non-list articles as well. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've commented on original research concerns at Talk:List_of_ARM_Cortex-M_development_tools as while the concerns raised are partially valid, the issue is nowhere close to warrant a WP:TNT and can be resolved via normal editing process. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per jpxg's sources. ~ A412  talk! 20:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.