Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free audio software


 * 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 -- JForget 23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of free audio software

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is duplication of category: free audio software and isn't going to evolve into anything else. The term itself is a non-notable description of an essentially arbitrary collection of software, and shouldn't have an article to itself. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep - The list includes vital information (i.e. what type of audio software) that is lost in categories. Category vs. list shouldn't be an either/or decision (per WP:CSL). Torc2 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - I agree. I often use software lists such as this for research before downloading or installing freeware/shareware/etc.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, lists and categories are not redundant, but complementary. Both are ways of organizing and navigating the wiki. In addition, lists allow much more context to be added (as in this case the non-alphabetical, but categorical sorting of the list). --Reinoutr (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - duplication between lists and categories is not a valid basis for deleting lists. See WP:CLS.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting that guideline: When developers of these redundant systems compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted simply because they overlap, they are doing Wikipedia a disservice. First, editors defend their systems of choice vigorously, so forcing confrontations between them in deletion discussions wastes the time and effort of contributors who would be better utilized by allowing them to develop their respective systems. Second, these pages often have links that their counterparts do not have - simply deleting such pages wastes those links. Third, deleting list pages just because they are redundant to categories may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system - this is a form of instability. Fourth, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists is a pointless waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm not opposed to using that guide as a counter to this nom, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have pointed out that the last edit to make substantial edits to that paragraph was, ummm, you. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep - Article can be organized finer than category. Add entries from category, link harder to relevant articles and categories, maybe to free software templates. 85.140.16.66 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ( Lurking user from Russia, Moscow )


 * 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.