Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free software for Web 2.0 services


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Also, I've examined the mailing list thread referenced and I think that if it influenced this discussion, it's minimal. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

List of free software for Web 2.0 services

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ngroot (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this might also qualify for speedy deletion under A3. No Content, as this is essentially just a categorized list of links. Ngroot (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that only the open source and not the propriety software is linked speaks to me of POV pushing, but I think the page could be improved.Stuartyeates (talk)

Specific and notable subtopics might be worthy of pages of their own, but the topic of this page is extremely broad and vague. The page itself is already many screenfuls of little more than category headers and links, and certainly more software will be added. Given the topic, how can the page be improved to not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Ngroot (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd start by (in no particular order) (a) purging all non-notable software (i.e. all software that doesn't already have a wikipedia page) (b) converting to a single table (or a small number) and converting the current headings to fields (c) referencing with references discussing equalivence of packages / services (d) making the propreity software names wiki links (e) writing a lead. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that those would be appropriate cleanup steps if the page were salvageable, but that doesn't address my fundamental complaint: the topic, specifically the "for Web 2.0 services", is overly broad and vague. Even written to Wikipedia standards, given the page title, it would still be a bunch of very loosely associated topics: "Web 2.0" is a broad and ill-defined term; software "for web 2.0 services" even more so. Ngroot (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not make sense to delete this unless more established lists such as this and this are deleted.DPic (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * actually I disagree the larger list of free software supersedes this list, making it redundant. That is bad because both lists must be kept up to date which from what I can tell this list is not. Also having information in more than on place is confusing. While we can argue about the merits of the other lists separately I don't really see a place for this list Lotu (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the criteria for inclusion, "for Web 2.0 services", is extremely vague and would lead to a collection of questionably- and loosely-related topics. Neither of the articles you have linked to has this problem. Ngroot (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep, and improve. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again: how do you "improve" it so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY?  How do you deal with the problem of loose and vague association from the "for Web 2.0 services" bit?


 * If you check the current page title, you'll hopefully agree that is no longer a problem Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

''The page in question is under discussion on a mailing list. The start of the discussion appears to pre-date the AfD nomination (slightly hard to tell due to timezone issues). See ''Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also on Reddit (which is where ngroot came from, so there is no canvassing.) Nymf hideliho! 07:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominate Template for Deletion. I'd like to mention how annoying it is to see a template that says that an article "has been nominated for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies." Really? In accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies? Not some other institution's deletion policy? How fascinating. I have zero interest in scanning through the deletion policies trying to guess why the nominator thought the article should be deleted. I don't even like having to go to the discussion page to find a reference number to some deletion policy. A template nominating an article for deletion should explain, in brief, which policy or policies might lead one to consider deleting the article. This isn't a difficult idea. I'm sure people have had it before, and I'm sure that those templates exist somewhere. Maybe they're crappy, and hard to use. Fine. It would be worth trying to fix them. But clearly nobody has, and nobody will until the Wikipedia community decides to de-stupidify some of the AfD policies around here. A generic nomination for deletion with a cryptic code word on some other page for justification (let alone one with no justification at all) should not be a notice that no-one can remove until the matter has been 'discussed' to everyone's satisfaction. It should, itself, be an immediate candidate for deletion. If the reasons for considering deletion are not explained by the notice, even just in the most general terms, I haven't much sympathy for the opinions of the nominator, nor much interest in discussing the matter. As things stand, of course, every time one sees AfD applied to some seemingly valuable article, one feels the need to find out what's going on, and jump into the fray. I don't want to feel or do that. Instead, if the nominator is not engaged enough in the matter to explain his concern in detail, I would rather just delete the nomination. Nothing against Ngroot for believing, in this situation, that the article is a good candidate for deletion. The reasons may be perfectly obvious in the WP: NOTDIRECTORY deletion policy. But I don't want to have to look at the [emphatic word] policy before I figure out whether or not this is a reasonable nomination. And if the reasons are perfectly obvious, and do not bear repeating, there can [emphatic word] well be a template that recapitulates them. 0x69494411 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Stuartyeates after the refactoring of the title. Nymf hideliho! 07:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above --The.Filsouf (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (also improve, and potentially split to specific pages; each category may deserve its own list). Look at the relevant guidelines WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Stand-alone-lists: the only guideline could potentially be violating is being a "list of loosely associated topics". Reading the description, this isn't a loosely associated collection of quotations, aphorisms, or persons.  In fact, in my opinion definitely falls under "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic."  A listing of free software is a strong association, in my opinion. Jimbobl (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've improved the first table substantially and would appreciate feedback. I envision all the other sections being merged into the same table. Non-notable software would be removed. Not sure about the hosting column. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion. See WP:SAL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've pretty much finished my tidy-up. Feedback welcome, as always. Some info is still missing, but the conversion is complete and the purge of non-notable entries is done. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A clearer nomination statement might have made a better impression on participants and set a better stage for discussion. Lists can make perfectly valid encyclopedic content, some even get to featured status. For whatever reason, much better after renaming and cleanup. Nice work, User:Stuartyeates and others. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2011 (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.