Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable software (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

List of portable software
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I realise I'm probably wasting my time, but our official policy does clearly say Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" or "a repository of links". There are a great many websites out there that are intended solely to be software directories, we don't need Wikipedia to be yet another. Also, on a personal note, I hate Wikipedia content that gleefully invites spam and therefore requires constant attention, especially when it is not even vaguely similar to encyclopaedic content. AlistairMcMillan 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous nomination: Articles for deletion/List of portable applications. AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vague, fluid, potentially huge, hard to mainatain, provides no context information - portable to what?, how easy it is?, which version?, ... Pavel Vozenilek 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the context is explained right in the lead: Portable software is a class of software that is suitable for use on portable drives such as a USB (thumb) drive or iPod or Palm PDA with "drive mode", although any external hard drive could theoretically be used. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen  14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is the encyclopedic content? How does this not violate our policies on verifiability, or on Wikipedia not being "an indiscriminate collection of information" or "a repository of links"? AlistairMcMillan 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't follow how this is any more so "a repository of links" than, for example, List of scholastic philosophers -- which WP:LIST uses as an example of what to do! -- or any other list on Wikipedia. Almost all Wikilists are wikilinked, that's the whole point of Wikipedia.  WP:NOT was certainly not intended to forbid lists full of Wikilinks -- and in fact itself links to the guidelines on how to do intenal lists correctly.  -- simxp (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

* Delete. Can the admin that deletes this please copy the page to my userspace? I see red-links I may want to start as articles. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen  05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT. Tbo 157   talk  12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete And YOU thought all software was portable. The article explains the definition, but this list is a bad idea.  Although usually I don't agree that something is going to be "unmaintainable", and much less with the overworked "it's potentially endless" argument, this list is only going to get larger.  The idea seems to be for everyone to expand upon it.  The problem with that is that everyone wants to add and move on, but nobody has the time to edit it.  Mandsford 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Move This doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But it is a relatively commonly referenced (According to Google, 135 external links to it) resource. Tjbk tjb 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Move", in the peculiar language of Wikipedia, usually means "keep and rename"; not that I'm trying to drum up delete votes, but if it moves, it's just moving to a different address in Wikipediatown. Also, it's better to be unoriginal than original when you're writing an article.  Just some of the strange customs around here... Mandsford 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't seem to have been an attempt to show that the criteria for inclusion have been meet for most/any of the items in the list. (And for good reason, since the definition is rather narrow... any attempt to fufill it would run close to WP:OR).  B figura  (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC) See below for changed !vote -- B figura  (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Slight merge Keep to portable application. This list is more comprehensive than Category:Portable software & it might be useful to preserve the edit history (and there is that matter of incoming links).  The list is very long & deserves cleanup if kept or merged.  See also List of portable computer games.  The list doesn't look much worse than it did when it was up for deletion last year, so I'm also cautious about such a radical change in consensus.  --Karnesky 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the cleanup, I think most of the legitimate arguments made against the older version are moot. --Karnesky 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the grounds that it's more useful as a list than a category since it's arranged by type of software; but remove all non-notable software -- i.e. everything that doesn't have a Wikipedia article, all the red and black links. That should keep out the spam and make it easy to maintain, since non-notable software is usually quickly CSD-A7'd.  -- simxp (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, we could have subcats of portable software & this would obviate the need for the only benefit the list provides (order). --Karnesky 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing to keep. Per the above statement that it's better than a category for being able to cover such a diverse nature of software applications, Keep, possibly strong. This just needs trimming to eliminate all the non-notable material and I have begun this. I can see no reason to delete this very useful list. I'll also volunteer to watchlist it to keep 'crap' out going forward. • Lawrence Cohen  14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember one of our policies being "useful", could you point me to that page? Also if you are planning to make this page a personal crusade, then perhaps you would like to get some free webspace somewhere else and host/maintain this content elsewhere. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - updated. Please note that I've completely gutted the article of all trivial, red-link, non-linked, non-notable software and spam. Compare these two versions of the article from when I began to now. Again, I happily volunteer to babysit this, and I see a lot of the material that I archived to here in my userspace can be re-added later when sourced with their own articles to make an even better list. Please close as a keep, now. • Lawrence Cohen  16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many such lists on Wikipedia have commonly been deleted as per WP:NOT. But you could try creating a category for the subject.   Tbo 157   talk  16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Portable software? • Lawrence Cohen  16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ye, you could expand that list as thats what the article is at the moment. Tbo 157   talk  17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment In lieu of deletion, could this be simply redirected to Portable software? Simply redirect rather than delete, in case there may be a need to expand it back out later. It is a valid term, which may be searched for. • Lawrence Cohen  17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means have a page explaining the term. The list however is not encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be arguing, here and above, that lists are inherently unencyclopedic and have no place on Wikipedia. Whilst that is certainly one point of view, it is certainly not Wikipedia policy -- see WP:LIST and Categories, lists, and series boxes. -- simxp (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic?" --WP:NOT I believe this qualifies.--Cb31989 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Super strong delete There doesn't seem to be much of a precedent for classing programs like this (making it a neologism), and pretty much all applications under a certain size (even on Windows) will meet the criteria (making it indiscriminate). Furthermore it's confusing to use such a similar name to "software portability," which is a very well-established and understood concept. Put your energy into making a good distribution kit of useful USB key software, give it a proper name, and if it becomes notable it can have a WP article. Potatoswatter 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Put your energy into making a good distribution kit of useful USB key software, give it a proper name, and if it becomes notable it can have a WP article" -- ...Ummm, could you clarify exactly who you're talking to here? Unless I'm mistaken (and please forgive me if I am), you seem to be implying that concept of a Portable application is a neologism recently dreamt up by a Wikipedia editor to use as some kind of viral marketing for a flash drive distribution kit (!); which I assure you is not the case (Google "portable software", if you don't believe me...). -- simxp (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And half the results refer to software portability. There are places besides WP to collaborate on something like this. Talking about the history of mini-applications that can be physically carried and loaded at will would be encyclopedic. Attempting to decide which thousand of the millions of such programs are "notable" is not. I'm talking to anyone who adds a link to a list of SW titles. Potatoswatter 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Attempting to decide which thousand of the millions of such programs are "notable" is not" No, of course not. That is something this article shares with, for example, List of people who died young, and many thousands of other such lists.  In all such cases, notability and thus inclusion is very easily defined, not by the whim of the list editors, but by whether each item fulfils the criteria at WP:N -- that is, whether each item has a Wikipedia article!  (Ideally, of course, that Wikipedia article should mention that the software is portable or comes in a portable edition, with a source, but this is not immediately essential; articles can be edited and sources added).  -- simxp (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.
 * But only a very very small subset of the software listed here is famous for having a portable version. Firefox is not famous for being portable. Camino is not famous for being portable. Safari is not famous for being portable.
 * Heh what do you know. In the web browser section only three links actually point to articles that even mention the software is portable. Given that a significant percentage of the links point to articles that are single paragraph stubs to start with, I wonder how many articles actually mention anything at all about the software being portable. AlistairMcMillan 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An application that is known to be portable would qualify, I don't imagine it would have to be famous for being portable. • Lawrence Cohen  16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence pointed out above does state that it should be famous. Tbo 157   talk  16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is not indiscriminate.  Main problem seems to be that it is a spam target, and deletion is not an appropriate response.  The list may well require attention, it may well infringe some rule, but the existance of this list is a positive benefit to wikipedia.  The keep arguments in the first AfD still apply.  --SmokeyJoe 10:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is indiscriminate. There is no effort to limit the list to software that is noted for being portable. The goal seems to be (a) create a venue for anyone and everyone to spam Wikipedia with their non-notable software and/or (b) list every piece of portable software available. We have an article on portable software, notable examples should be listed there. We also have Category:Portable software. This article serves no purpose. What does it do that the portable software and the category do aside from attract crap. AlistairMcMillan 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, this is then a content issue, and you assert it ought to be deleted because it will require work to fix? So help me fix it. I have already done scores of "cleaning" edits on the list, and it's much better shape. Help, rather than complain and try to get it erased, if you are unhappy with the present state of the content. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen  18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, if your grave concern is that this will be a "spam magnet", how is this article any more so than any other? I have begun checking each section and item already in the article, to see if the article in question asserts portability. You are welcome to start at the bottom, while I work from the top. The list is easily manageable, and removing two spam links in the past four days was trivial. • Lawrence Cohen  18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the list is valuable in that allows encyclopediac arrangement of the portable software by the very nature of the software, and it's role and purpose, which cannot be done with a category. • Lawrence Cohen  18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of all information. It is supposed to be a collection of notable information. We have clear policies that say Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, indiscriminate collection of information or repository of links. This isn't a content issue. This is a "bad idea for an article" issue. We have the "portable software" article and the category, we don't need this article. AlistairMcMillan 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To repeat our esteemed colleague's quote from What Wikipedia is not: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic?" I think I could count on one hand the number of pieces of software that are famous for being associated with or significantly contributing to the list topic. AlistairMcMillan 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETED. Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.60.180 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Since this article has now been dramatically cleaned up since it was proposed for deletion, I would say that it's considerably better than it was - all of the junk that was previously dumped into it appears to have been removed, leaving it with only relevant links to Wiki articles.
 * The Wikipedia isn't a list of lists, but this article does add to the Wikipedia in the same way as a category storing the same information would; see also Categories, lists, and series boxes. Nuwewsco 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool that is why we have the category, which is not up for AFD. AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think these shortcuts are misleading -- WP:NOT does not say that Wikipedia may not contain information. Inclusion criteria are simple: if the software has an article and the software is portable, it passes. The previous AfD concluded that the list was useful and appropriate, and while that was a while ago, nothing has changed since. — xDanielx T/C 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No one said the linked policy said "Wikipedia may not contain information", it says "Wikipedia may not contain indiscriminate information". AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that. My point is that WP:NOT (excluding the numbered examples, which have some specificity) is not, and never has been, an independent reason to delete an article. It is, and always has been, nothing more than a response to the now-rare argument that "This information is true, therefore it should be included in Wikipedia." That argument has not been made here, so sighting WP:NOT really isn't appropriate for this AfD. WP:NOT by itself applies no more to this article than it does to art, science, or philosophy. — xDanielx T/C 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Would people commenting here actually look at the article before voicing their opinions. Look at the edit history, in the seven days since this article was nominated, every edit aside from my own, Lawrence Cohen and one other editor was by someone spamming the article. Having an article about the software can't be criteria for inclusion because half the linked articles are stubs which are obvious WP:ADVERTs, which should themselves be AFDed. The list article doesn't tell you whether the software is portable because the original developers intended, whether it is portable because third-party have manipulated it to kinda sorta work as portable software (e.g. Mail, iChat) or whether it is "portable" in the sense that you can download the code and recompile it for another platform (e.g. wget). Even with the time that Lawrence has spent on it recently "verifying", there are no sources to prove that any of these pieces of software really are portable. The article is a fucking mess. It isn't a suitable subject for an article on Wikipedia. Stop voting in favour of keeping it because you think it is "useful", please read WP:USEFUL. AlistairMcMillan 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times do you get to share your views on the matter? :-) We know where you stand, please AGF and back off before something is said which is regretted over a simple matter where consensus appears to be not what you wish, unfortunately. I have requested semi-protection as your main concern appears to be IP-vandalism.  As for the bulk of the edits being me, that is right: I've been cleaning up the article, and will continue to do so. It does not need to be finished now, as it will be never finished. We have no deadlines here. •  Lawrence Cohen  23:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is nonsense. The nominator has very faulty logic here. You might as well delete List of portable computer games and List of LiveDistros, as well. I've seen a lot of people interpret WP:NOT in radical ways and this is one such case. 129.120.22.141 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a list a link directory, and this is all I see from this article w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What link directory would that be? All the external/non-notable ones are already excised. • Lawrence Cohen  02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * delete maybe belongs as several different categories, too vague as a list Mbisanz 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep due to cleanup.(Changed !vote from above) -- B figura  (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2007 (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.