Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UML 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 of the debate was keep, following re-write. BD2412 T 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

List of UML tools
Delete Redundant to Category:UML tools; WP is not a list of links Karnesky 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tried to clean up the list by slashing & burning non-notable links. I'm a little more happy with it--enough to withdraw my Delete vote.  Not so happy to actually vote keep, though (I think it should just be a cat, but it is no longer the least maintained software list). --Karnesky 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Keep after removal of external links, per arguments below that the category and list would serve different purposes; i.e., the list would point to relevant articles that have yet to be created. --Kinu 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)); updated Kinu 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Royboycrashfan 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Keep, but remove external links. Royboycrashfan 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if linkspam can be removed. -- Avi 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete linkspam Ruby 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ruby, the above can be parsed two different ways: 1) "Delete the article because it is linkspam", or 2) "Delete that portion of the article which is linkspam". I'm guessing you intended the first, but could you please clarify your intentions?  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep If you delete this, the content will appear inside UML Tool. This also adds more information that the category as it allow for a brief description of the tool. It's also somethign that is useful. Mjchonoles 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as linkspam .Blnguyen 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blnguyen 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but eliminate the external links. There's nothing wrong with list articles. Melchoir 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, Keep but eliminate the external links. J I P  | Talk 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, list has added explanation which cannot be included in a category. Lists and categories serve different purposes and therefore cannot make one another redundant. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. If you delete this, there will be a great pressure to create a separate article for every entry. If you delete this and this gets through, please consider deleting all articles in Category:Lists of software too (for example List of wiki software). As per the "link spam": If it helps to overturn the delete request, I would propose to remove the external links on those entries that do have an article. But please note that then that should be done on all articles in Category:Lists of software as well (please note that on several software articles there has been no consensus to do so in the past). Please also note that these kinds of lists previously resided in their respective article (For example I split off List of Petri net tools from Petri net. The question is, will this be moved to Petri net back then?). This here will be a precedent. So I would recommend to take due care on this. Thank you for your careful consideration. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note There is sufficient debate not to have a "speedy" keep. I think that any notability should be prerequisite for list inclusion in lists such as this, so several stubs wouldn't be a bad outcome to this:  they would provide an instant test over whether a product was useful or just more link spam.  I have started cleaning up the lists that are in Category:Lists of software, including List of wiki software (partly by rming external links and non-notable products).  But one list at a time!  Some of the articles in the wiki list need to be stubbed.  List of UML tools is my most controversial List AfD, but it also has:
 * one of the highest level of link spam
 * so many programs which are non-notable
 * very little effort to clean it up and keep it clean has been made (people have even thwarted past efforts to remove the external link cruft)
 * an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)
 * the category includes all of the programs in the list and some which aren't in the list
 * List of Petri net tools does need a clean-up, but people have been making efforts to do so. I haven't yet touched it.  Again: One list at a time.  There's no reason to move these lists back to the original articles.  But that's not an excuse to keep poor lists.  Categories should be used when they can provide enough information.   Lists should be kept to the same standard as if they were kept in the original article.  This list hasn't been kept to that standard; the link spam is just terrible.
 * --Karnesky 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "one of the highest level of link spam" do you really talk about List of UML tools?? "an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)" there was nearly zero discussion about deleting List of UML tools. "very little effort to clean it up" - whoops?? how that. As you can see I have kept that list quite clean without much discourse among contributors. I'm really asking are you really talking about List of UML tools? Puzzled. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way: I've had that List of UML tools on my radar (watchlist) since ever. But I'havent read anything about your concerns on the talk there. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 46 external links when only 17 articles are in wikipedia. Even rming external links for blue links, this is 29 external links & 17 internal ones.  Since notability should be a criteria for inclusion in the list, a list shouldn't have more external links than internal ones.  If you can clean up the list & it is useful beyond the category, I'll gladly change my vote.  Right now it is more spam than not. --Karnesky 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The elinks for softwares that have an article can be removed. No problem. What I see a problem is, with "non-notable". Who decides that? I can tell you: this is very slippery ground, especially for such a low edit traffic article as this is. If you remove a certain product, the contributor can be very upset if you have not a clear concept what goes on the list and what doesn't. They will quickly create articles. I don't think this is very helpful. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The external links for blue linked software should go. At least some of the external links in the External links section should go.  Notability should be dictated by Notability_(software).  This is one reason why I'm in favor of a cat, rather than a list: the notability of every tool (article) would be tested through an established procedure, rather than turning to a spam-filled list.  If a tool doesn't warrant a stub article, it doesn't warrant inclusion in a list.  Contributors should not be upset by any bold removal--they can create stubs or argue notability.  Without this figure of merit, my vote will stay delete--the list would be uncomprehensive and unmaintainable. -- Karnesky 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can imagine, I disagree with Notability (software). BTW, it has only proposal status. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, not listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is valuable.  The cat doesn't really replace the list; even the redlinks (which wouldn't show up in the cat) have value, since they point out tools which don't (yet) have wikipedia articles.  The list is a valuable resource for people looking for UML tools, let's not destroy that in some quest for wiki-purity.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I look a little time and started looking closer as some of the redlink entries. Take GNU Ferret, for example.  Looking at the Ferret web site, there's really nothing that deserves an article of its own.  It's a work in progress, and statistically, most projects at Ferret's level of development are doomed to wither and die.  It certainly doesn't meet Notability (software), for whatever that's worth.  But, as one example in a list surveying the field, it certainly deserves a mention.  I could write a GNU Ferret stub, which would certainly improve the blue/red ratio, but it would be making a wp:point for no good reason.  As time goes on, some of the red links will turn blue, and new entries (of one color or another) will get added.  I don't see anything bad about that -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but prune. I agree with Karnesky, external links for which there is a wikilink should go. But I think accusations of linkspam are going too far: a good faith effort to maintain a useful list—even if you think it's not a useful list—is not spam. —rodii 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list that is redundant to a category, an invitation to create a load more articles on nn software, and a list that is of interest to only a limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories don't make lists redundant. With lists we can do things we cannot do with categories, like adding annotations or sorting non-alphabetically to name just a few. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Lists and Categories absolutely do NOT make each other redundent, and who cares how many people its of interest to, I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest! Jcuk 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep great list Tim | meep in my general direction 23:57, 10 February 2006 (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.