Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social 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   no consensus. Would be a textbook WP:SOFIXIT keep, but the delete side raises some valid doubts about whether the problems can be fixed. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unsourced list. AFD closed as "keep but source" in December 2007 and as usual, no one's been arsed to fix the damn thing so it's just sitting around rotting. I really don't think this list serves much purpose if no one can be bothered to even touch it; what's more, the definition is nebulous on the social software article, and the list lacks focus. Another user tried to nominate this but didn't finish the process, instead appending their !vote to the last discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I see no reason to delete it. Tag age is irrelevant. The social software page is cited and so is notable; having a nebulous definition on that page is no reason to delete the list. Rather, it's justification for improving the social software page. Try improving the page yourself.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With what? I see nothing to improve it with. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you could start by modifying the definition to be more concise, and cite it accordingly?&mdash;RJH (talk)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * delete the "keep but source" conclusion of the last afd (based on what 3 !votes?) has as pointed out, resulted in "keep but not source" which is a violation of basic wikipedia guidelines WP:V. WP:LIST. If no sources have been found in three years, those claiming that such sources exist really need to WP:PROVEIT. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some sources. Perhaps you can spend two minutes to locate a couple more?&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOEFFORT and WP:SOFIXIT. This navigational list is encyclopedic and I've added two more references myself. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Refactor and delete. Everything this page tries to do can better be provided by categories, Social software and links to lists of specific types of social software. --Pnm (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Refactor examples:
 * Create Category:Social software underneath Category:Social media.
 * Blogs: Create List of blog software, merge to Blog software, or delete. (The list of blog software seems absurdly incomplete.)
 * Social bookmarking: Split to current redirect List of social bookmarking websites. Use Category:Social bookmarking for the rest.
 * Personals: Merge with List of online dating websites and remove.
 * IRC: Remove. Already mentioned at Social software. In Social software, link to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
 * Instant messaging: Remove. In Social software, link to Comparison of instant messaging clients.
 * --Pnm (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While categories would be a great addition, per WP:CLN such navigational lists are still not redundant to categories. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed the bit about categories (which I think was confusing). Also, I populated Category:Social software and made some more edits to the article under discussion. I still think individual lists linked from Social software will be more helpful. --Pnm (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : Textbook WP:NOEFFORT nomination. Obvious and strong navigational aid of notable software, list is not indiscriminate and has a clear cut selection criteria. Requiring editing is not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. We do not have a deadline so the list can stay aeons in this state and everything be jolly good: we're a voluntary project where people pick up stuff if and when they want it. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:59, 29 December 2010 (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.