Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CEP vendors


 * 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. -- VS talk 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

List of CEP vendors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOT and WP:NOT Delete Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ronnotel (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and further - the list has no reliable sourcing, it seems to be pure WP:OR. Ronnotel (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the author of this list, as suggested in the CEP talk page, and following the example of the ERP and RDBMS entries (which are equivalent).

Can you explain your policy suggestions? Isvana (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:NOT and WP:NOT not really applicable in this case. Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object-relational_database_management_systems - what is different about these? Isvana (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — Isvana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree - Do not Delete. List is valid.  It does not violate WP:NOT as it is not acting as an internet guide for a website.  It is a valid list of vendors of CEP technology.  It is in line with existing lists, for example List of IT Service Management vendors and List of ERP vendors as pointed out earlier - for more lists, check out the Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry for example.  It does not violateWP:NOT as it is a separate article, just like the other "list of" pages.  It also helps to keep the encyclopedic nature and tone of the original CEP article. Bardcom (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- please link to where another list of CEP vendors exists? Otherwise surely this policy is invalid. Thankyou. Isvana (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hu12, I've noticed in the past that you tend to point out specific points in policy, but you don't explain why the points are relevant in particular cases. This can sometimes lead to situations where I'm not sure what your point is. I've argued against WP:NOT and WP:NOT being reasons to exclude this list.  If you disagree, please give reasons why. Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a little disingenuous to merely point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to ignore the point that other similar lists exist. The purpose of this guideline is to prevent people from pointing to perhaps one similar article as justification for another.  In this case, your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not justified on the grounds I was pointing out that there are hundreds of vendor lists.  Question - are you arguing against the *concept* of a List of CEP vendors, or against the *merit* of a List of CEP vendors? Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you both misunderstand.
 * Isvana stated ..."Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object-relational_database_management_systems - what is different about these?"
 * you stated... "It is in line with existing lists, for example List of IT Service Management vendors and List of ERP vendors as pointed out earlier - for more lists, check out the Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry for example."
 * This AFD is about List of CEP vendors, not any other article. Which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is an Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. A common argument used against the deletion of certain articles is that other articles similar to the one in question exist. The presence of similar articles does not validate the existence of List of CEP vendors. You arguments will carry more weight if they are couched in the notability guidelines --Hu12 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hu12, thank you for elaborating on your reasons for pointing out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not pointing to one or two other lists as justification for this list.  The existence of the List of lists demonstrates that the practice is commonplace and acceptable.  The reason for the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is to prevent someone pointing to one or two other similar articles.  IMHO it is not applicable to use this argument when someone points out that there are several hundred similar articles.... Bardcom (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added a suggestion on Talk:List_of_CEP_vendors--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you point to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, when your own contributions to this debate could rightly be found guilty of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- RoninBK T C 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hu12, can you explain why you think List of CEP vendors contravenes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ? For sure, other technology lists of vendors don't justify this page, but you haven't justified removing it. Removing it would surely contravene WP:YESPOV - providing a full list of suppliers is a neutral way of defining suppliers, and the fact the suppliers exist are salient facts (see WP:ASF ).Isvana (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Complex Event Processing. It seems to me that there isn't anything special about this list that needs to be separated out into a separate article. I'm also concerned that this could be considered a linkfarm, which is why WP:NOT is being quoted. -- RoninBK T C 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Roninbk - excellent point; however (a) see the talk page on Complex Event Processing where this has been tried and failed in the past, and (b) the other computer technologies seem to follow this pattern of a separate page for listing appropriate vendors. I think most readers would be happy with either approach.Isvana (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that including vendor links violates WP:EL and WP:NPOV Bardcom (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... although of course you could argue that excluding vendor names / refusing to recognise that vendors exist for this area violates WP:NPOV too (ie bias against vendors, implies only an academic topic, etc) - this page List of CEP vendors at least redresses this a little! Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you like, simply put in a statement to say that commercial software is available from a list of vendors.  The external links to articles and the complexevents website will point them in the right direction.  I don't understand the reluctance to mention the early academic projects as it's an important source of reference and background reading for anyone wanting to understand the underlying principals.  Same reason for referencing David Luckham's book - it's too important a reference to exclude.  The article exists to provide someone with a sane, reasonable, balanced, and neutral information on what CEP is.  The academic projects are merely for those wishing to dive in at a deeper level to understand why it's notable.  References to vendor websites fail this test - they are not educational, they are commercial.  A list of CEP vendors is different, as a reader would only read this article in order to learn about vendors, products, specialization (if any), geography, etc. Bardcom (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bardcom: I was going to discuss your arguments but (a) that should go into the talk discussion on the CEP page and (b) I only disagree on one point (why is it not an indication of "bias" for it to be "fair" to name academic projects yet "not valid" to mention commercial projects or products - my argument is that whatever reason there is for listing academic projects probably exists for listing non-academic projects ... - but then apart from this reference list I can't necessarily see why any vendor should be mentioned, so the argument is probably moot anyway).Isvana (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OTHERSTUFF. To use the argument properly, it is necessary to show either that the article being considered is worse than the other stuff, or that the other stuff cited is not representative of the general practice, and should probably be deleted also. But when there is a considerable number of other comparable articles of similar quality, then there are two possibilities: One, it is in fact the usual practice of WP to keep such articles -- which is of course a good reason to keep; or Two is is the practice to keep them,  but the policy should be changed to not keep them--which is a suitable reason to keep this particular case and try to change the policy. DGG (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not violate WP:NOT as it is not acting as an internet guide for a website. It is a valid list of vendors of CEP technology and provides a valuable information source of CEP vendors.  It is in line with established practice of existing lists, many listed here Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry.  Bardcom (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * #3 "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers"
 * List of CEP vendors exists to only to describe the services and products the Vendor offers.--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not completely the full picture. The list primarily exists to provide a quick comparison of differences between vendors.  At the moment, the only differentation is whether it's Open Source or not, but this will grow and become more descriptive over time.  It does contain links, but the article would be equally valid without the links.  We want to include the links as a qualification mechanism....  Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the title of this page is "List of CEP Vendors" NOT "List of CEP Vendor websites". The inclusion of web sites / URLs is sendondary to the list. Any suggestion or argument to remove the URLs should be made in the talk page viz is not a valid reason for AfD (IMHO) Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not violateWP:NOT as it is a separate article, and is in line with established practice of existing lists. It states here WP:NOT that "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference".   Bardcom (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * #1 "...Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."
 * List of CEP vendors exists as a repository of external links to vendors' products.--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again this is not the purpose of the article. See point made above. Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but a table of vendors is not the same as "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories". Here is a quick test (also mentioned in the article talk page): Remove the URLs (which are only there as references anyway). This is still a list of CEP vendors! Ergo, this is not an argument to remove this page (it *may* be an argument to alter it). Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  TJ   Spyke   04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution to this decision making process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardcom (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2008


 * Qu (as a Wiki novice) - should List of CEP vendors simply be re-labelled as List of CEP tools ? Is it the "vendor" part of the name that is objectionable to some people? Isvana (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, pointless list violating policy on wikipedia.JJJ999 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - is that an argument to delete the links (or rather turn them into references), and rename as List of CEP Tools; or a delete the entire list because you don't see any point and such lists are widely available somewhere else (PS: would appreciate the link)?Isvana (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2008 (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.