Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Visual Studio Add-ins


 * 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. For details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Visual Studio Add-ins. JERRY talk contribs 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Microsoft Visual Studio Add-ins

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM Hu12 (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article wasn't conceived for this, but unfortunately has reached an unsalvage-able state. --soum talk 09:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not very informative, hard to maintain due to volatility of the topic. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would hate to see this article get deleted.  There is a newly released version of Visual Studio (version 2008) so there is a need for this information to be publicly available.  Sadly, a comprehensive list of Visual Studio add-ins is very hard to find.  By keeping this, you would be doing a great service to the developer community. Rhymed (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the rationale proposed for this article's deletion. Wikipedia has many lists of software (see Category:Lists of software), of which this is one.  If the nom is concerned with the inclusion of non-notable add-ins or with spammy links, then the correct course of action is to edit the article, or to discuss on the talk page.  It could certainly be argued that this article acts as a "directory", but I disagree with that assessment and argue that it is a useful navigation tool - which it is (as are the other computer lists), because it links to articles and not-yet-created articles. I am confused by one of the comments that this article has reached an unsalvageable state.  I do not think it is unsalvageable, as I have been editing it for the past couple of days, and regard my editing as progress.  Further, although I have not added sources, I have found several sources that I will try to get at my local libraries tomorrow (Monday): ISBN 1886411697, ISBN 0596003609, ISBN 0321411757 and ISBN 0596008473 (see Google Books for some more). I also am confused as to the deletion rationale that this article is uninformative and difficult to maintain.  Firstly, "uninformative" is a subjective label, as it is clearly informative to those investigating Microsoft Visual Studio and to the developer community.  Second, if it is difficult to maintain, that is a reason to edit it, not delete it! And finally, I think we should seriously consider what Wikipedia is - or should - be: a service to the readers.  Here, we have an article that is clearly related to existing articles, we have a group of readers that would clearly benefit from this article, and yet we are considering deletion?  I argue that this article should be kept as many of the apparent and/or alleged problems can be fixed by editing, and because it is valuable and related to other existing and established articles.  --Iamunknown 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is no such thing as unsalvagable writing -- all writing can be fixed: it just takes copy-editing and more writing. And "hard to maintain" isn't a valid reason either - see George W. Bush for an example of an article that is hard to maintain. Wikipedia itself is hard to maintain, so should we delete it?  The nomination itself is incorrect.  The article is not a mere collection of links or a directory.  It's a list of topics that are related in a significant way which users are likely to seek out, and which helps users understand the main topic better.  And the article as a whole certainly is not spam.  If there are any spam entries or links, those should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.  This list shouldn't have been nominated for deletion.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:54, 1 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.