Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of 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.  Sandstein  16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists of software

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list of lists appear to be a partial, redundant duplicate of the "Lists of software" category. (Already PRODded by me and dePRODded by an anonymous editor.) Goochelaar  (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I do not object to the concept itself of a list of lists. It is only that it looks like the best this particular list can aspire to is becoming as comprehensive and as useful as Category:Lists of software already is. Goochelaar  (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A list of internal lists? no, delete. We have the contents directories for that. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Being a "list of lists" isn't, IMHO, a valid reason for deletion, nor is being redundant to a category. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — Lists of lists are perfectly fine to have here. Also, lists and categories can coexist. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is redundant. -- Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC items 7 and 11. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that 11 doesn't apply precisely because it's a list of lists. Splitting this up is the only sensible way to go if you want to make it maintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Stifle, and #5 might also be included in that. Tavix (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above, I don't believe criterion 11 applies, and 7 doesn't work on a combined list. It applies to actual entries instead of sublists. This list is a navigational tool for other software lists that links them together and makes them maintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary, redundant and just plain stupid. Just more impossible to maintain and bureaucratic garbage. Trusilver  02:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate navigational tool; lists of lists are technical devices for organization, and should not be deleted in cases where there is suitable material and people to work on them. DGG (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep useful navigational tool; not duplicate of category as provides alternative non-alphabetical classification; valid form of article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per WP:CLN; parenthetically I am disappointed editors are quoting from WP:LC as if it is a guideline or policy, when it is an essay. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists of lists are an appropriate subject matter, as long as the sublists belong as well. This list is a good way of organizing the broad variety of software.  It is discriminate (only linking lists on Wikipedia) and the topic is encyclopedic.Themfromspace (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the purposes of a list is for navigtion (this is from WP:LIST). This article is clearly useful for organising and navigating through our lists about software. The end reader is likely to find this useful. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (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.