Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scorewriters


 * 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. After two relistings, overall consensus herein is for article retention. That said, the article would benefit from some cleanup as delineated herein. As such, I have added the Cleanup AfD template to the article. NorthAmerica1000 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of scorewriters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:LINKFARM list that, once all the external links are removed, duplicates the more informative and discriminating Comparison of scorewriters &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – On the list's entries: The notability requirements for list entries are much lower than those for the creation of articles. On the list itself: The nominator removed just now all entries without articles from Comparison of scorewriters, so this list remains the only source of information on a niche genre of software. I don't think there is anything like this anywhere else. If Wikipedia is, i.a., an almanac, this should stay. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That it's WP:USEFUL or contains information that isn't elsewhere is not a reason to keep an article. If this is to be kept, it will have to conform to standards for lists (which means every item (a) has to have an article, (b) must be accompanied by citations to reliable secondary sources showing that it should be included because it is a notable scorewriter, or (c) both). It also has to be modified to work with our external linking policy. Between the two of these, the part of the article you're saying is the reason for keeping would have to be removed. It may be useful, but Wikipedia is not a directory or place to promote software. The only reason I didn't start removing things from this one is because I think it's bad form to make huge changes to an article just to then nominate it for deletion. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * List entries only have to establish that they are indeed members of that list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true, and it's that which precisely leads to Wikipedia being used as a directory, promotional platform, link farm, etc. The standard applied to the vast majority of stand-alone lists is WP:CSC. Most of the time entries need to have their own article which has sources verifying their fitness for inclusion in a given list. If they don't have such sources in the article, then they can be sourced at the list. In some rarer cases, notability can be demonstrated by citing several reliable secondary sources showing that it could have an article even if it doesn't. Only in special circumstances is proving the existence of something proof enough, and those are almost always with exhaustible lists like a discography, list of works by a particular author, list of people to receive a certain award, list of episodes in a TV series, list of Windows operating systems, etc. A list of examples from a certain genre of music, of movies from a certain country, or of a particular type of software like this one, even if it's niche, doesn't work that way because the list is inexhaustible and/or insufficiently bounded. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I see no reason to include software here that has no coverage in secondary sources, and that this is overbroad in that way seems to be the only argument presented for keeping this. The comparison article already fulfills the valid function of this list and with more substance. If there is an argument for including software that doesn't merit its own article (such as if secondary sources include it in their own comparison tables), that argument can be made and discussed on the comparison list's talk page. After deletion, this title should be made a redirect to the comparison list. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep An appropriate list and way of covering less-than-notable products. NOT DIRECTORY means we should not have separate articles on all of them.  DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR hits on a whole lot of things, but that we shouldn't have separate articles about non-notable topics just sounds like WP:N -- maybe I'm misunderstanding. Regardless, maybe WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the more appropriate NOT link. The bigger problem is: when a Comparison page and a List exist for the same subject, why would we keep both when the entirety of the list = [notable items from the comparison] - [information about those items] + [a linkfarm]? If the article is kept, it wouldn't be appropriate per external linking policy to keep the linkfarm and I can't imagine a list of software where the consensus inclusion criteria is its existence rather than some sense of notability. Once those are removed, it's CSD-worthy duplication of existing content. Whether we want to look at WP:N, WP:CSC, WP:LINKFARM, or others from WP:NOT, I can't see this as anything but a clear delete/redirect. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline WP:N is based on the fundamental principles of the policies NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY. They are not fundamentally different, but imply each other.  DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how there's an argument for keep in there. NOTDIR/N weren't part of the deletion rationale. They came up above, and I still think that there are WP:NOT arguments to be made, but your initial comment about NOTDIR meaning individual items shouldn't have their own articles -- putting aside whether I read it the same way -- doesn't address the problems with the page that brought it here (per the rationale and my previous comments). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (state)  @ 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep, but possibly get rid of the entries without articles. This is not a duplicate of Comparison of scorewriters; it has more entries. If the latter article incorporates the rest, then Afd could be revisited. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an argument for merge as a comment about the current status of the articles rather than the article topics themselves. That it has more doesn't speak to the actual subject of the page. If their domain is the same then they should be considered as potentially sharing the same entries whether or not they currently do. It doesn't, to me anyway, seem like a keep should depend on an assumption that nobody will build out one of the articles (i.e. that the article with less to offer is useful so long as the other one has room for improvement). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonably sized list of notable software. The article could do with cleanup and formatting, but that's not a job for AfD. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Consider my mind blown by this one. Here's my postmortem analysis: It seems like people agree cleanup is needed and that this needs to follow standard ELNO/LINKFARM standards, so I assume nobody will mind if we remove those external links. It also seems uncontroversial that the comparison (as with comparison articles in general) is preferable to the list as it has more information. What's left in favor of the list are the entries it has that the comparison does not yet have. When I nominated it, I didn't think it had a substantial number of entries that weren't on the comparison, but it does appear there are more than a couple. My conclusion: while I still think the keep votes above should all be merges, it would've been more appropriate for me to propose a merge rather than AfD? Or to boldly perform a merge and then AfD? Am I correct on that? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:08, 25 November 2014 (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.