Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExamDiff (second 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 of the debate was Redirect to Diff. Radiant_>|< 09:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ExamDiff

The first deletion nomination was borderline by my count, and I decided to close it with a keep after a good rewrite by the author. This has been disputed and one sysop even peremptorily deleted it. I'm listing this for further discussion. I would like to ask the deleting sysop not to make further attempts to delete this without a proper discussion. It is in no way a candidate for speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a popular programming tool, given a good editorial review by download.com. The article was written by the author of the software, but in my opinion the article lacks the promotional language and the unjustified superlatives (or inded at the moment any superlatives) that are characteristic of advertising. It is well written and encyclopedic, and is useful. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) addendum: If not kept, redirect to diff. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it seems like a nice program, it is really not very notable -- it's just a windows implement of the unix command "diff". Sdedeo 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • FWIW, of all the diff tools I can find listed on download.com, it has both more downloads total and more downloads last week than all the others put together. It is given the third highest CNet rating after both versions of DiffDog, and the second highest user rating after ExamDiff Pro. It had more downloads last week than the CygWin Unix porting suite. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a verifiable topic. There are precedents for this sort of article: see kompare, WinDiff, WinMerge. If the program is really just a variant of "diff" (doesn't look like it, because it includes a GUI), then merge into diff and redirect. --MarkSweep 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like an advertisement, even after the re-write. --Carnildo 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (Am I allowed to vote?) -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well you are the author of the article and of the software tool so as long as we all know that, the closer can take it into account. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not the author of ExamDiff. Why do you think I am? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Dunno. Brainfart induced by excess consumption of anno domini, I should expect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Diff. It's already mentioned in the Related Proprietary Software subheading of the Diff article, and I fail to see what's so encyclopedically notable about this program that it merits its own article. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I could go with that one. If it isn't kept, I think that would be good. I'll edit my vote. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I actually use this product but am puzzled as to how it could be considered encyclopedic. It is a very ordinary piece of utility software that, though well written, is simiar to many other competing products. I cannot imagine how it would contribute to history in any way, and can't imagine why an encyclopedic project -- even one as broad as Wikipedia in scope -- would be a suitable reference source for such ephemera. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Uninvited Company --TimPope 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony's assertion that it's a popular programming tool. Kappa 22:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's "popular" for a very limited definition of "popular": Linux and MacOSX both come with a very nice "diff" utility, which is far more widely used than ExamDiff. Also, most programming IDEs come with an integrated "diff" utility. That means that this program is popular among programmers who meet all of the following:
    1. Have a need for a "diff" utility
    2. Don't use MacOSX or Linux
    3. Don't use either Cygwin or MinGW
    4. Don't like their IDE's "diff", or don't use an IDE
  • It's a very small market. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also used as the version comparison utility in QVCS. Uncle G 23:55:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a man page. Steve Summit (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's not a criterion for deletion. At best it's an argument for improving the article. --MarkSweep 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right, my stated reason was a little flip, but my point was that I think it's inherently a man page, I can't really see how it could ever be properly encyclopedic, without duplicating too much information that would more properly be (and already is) on a central, non-particular-implementation-specific diff page. Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see how it's encyclopaedic on it's own merit. Would people wanting to know about ExamDiff actually go to Wikipedia to do it? Cursive 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; not notable enough. Erwin Walsh
• In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2, User:ESkog commented on the lack of criteria for determining the notability of software. I suggest the answer to the following question as at least a guideline: "Did anyone else care enough about the software to review it?" In cases of software products that would probably be universally considered notable, such as PKZip or PC Tools, that is the case, as such products have many reviews in computer magazines and the like. However, for this package I haven't yet located anything other than simple reprints of the "blurb on the side of the box" (sometimes thinly disguised, and mostly as product descriptions in on-line catalogues). You might be able to sway editors' opinions, User:Alex Nisnevich, if you can locate reviews of this package, to show that people have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published articles that focus upon it. Uncle G 23:55:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this can be the sole criterion for determining the notability of software (and I don't think you're suggesting it should be). We have articles on a lot of traditional Unix system software, such as diff, dd, cmp, ls, mv, cp, even Unix system calls like mmap. I'd be surprised to find a serious review of cp somewhere ("All those of you who thought 'cat foo > bar' was great, wait till you try 'cp foo bar'! A++++++"). --MarkSweep 04:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Prepare to be surprised. You might not find a review, in the magazine sense of the term, but you'll find that for those programs, people indeed have "written and published articles that focus upon them". People write "Useless use of cat" articles about cat. If you look at the references section for diff you'll find that there's an entire book on that command. People have actually written teaching courses that focus on on cp, mv, and ls ([1] [2] [3]). And, yes, if you look at the references section of mmap you'll see that people have written programming guides that focus upon it, too.

      The fundamental point is that people, independent of the original author, have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it, be those works magazine reviews, teaching courses, books, programming guides, or other commentaries. So, for example, if someone had written a book on ExamDiff for O'Reilly Media, or a teaching course that specifically addressed it as a topic, then those would be arguments that could be used to sway editors' opinions towards keeping an article on the subject. Uncle G 14:41:25, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

• Redirect per Fernando Rizo, no reason to leave a blank page here if we actually have information on the program somewhere. Doesn't need its own article though. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --fvw* 04:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. What was the reason for creating Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination) when Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2 already existed, except to avoid the appearance of someone else reopening a questionable VfD closure? - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was deleted out of process by User:Radiant! shortly after you listed it. I should have checked for your own Vfd and seen it, but I didn't and wasn't aware of its existence until today. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and if Tony had done a proper job at closing the original VFD in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Radiant_>|< 07:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I take exception to that false and damaging statement, one in a recent series of unjustified personal attacks. There were only four votes, it was borderline, and the article had been subject to a good rewrite. There are two principles that supported the keep in this case: that a rewrite during VfD should be taken into account, and Deletion policy, If in doubt, don't delete!. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You know, if you make a mistake and somebody corrects it, it's not very nice to accuse and attack them. It is not very mature to take exception at criticism. Radiant_>|< 14:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been deleted the first time round. Proto t c 10:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Diff sounds sensible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both because it is not notable, and because it is a process violation to have undeleted and relisted it here while discussion is still ongoing at WP:VfU, in my opinion. Nandesuka 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was deleted in violation of process shortly after an earlier VfD nomination. And there is nothing to stop an article listed on VFU being undeleted and listed on VfD, although I have made a personal undertaking to avoid doing so in the case of contested speedy deletions. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a ridiculous allegation. The article was deleted because the earlier VFD had consensus to delete. Read up on our deletion policy, would you? (and also, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:FAITH) Radiant_>|< 13:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • You have your facts wrong. I am the administrator who closed the first listing. I closed it as no consensus. Please don't make blatantly false statements. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. You wrongly closed it as "no consensus" when it obviously had a consensus to delete. You should follow consensus in the future rather than impose your own point of view. And it wouldn't hurt if you stopped attacking people who disagree with you - it's not very civil. Radiant_>|< 13:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Tony Sidaway did not have to count the votes, as Wikipedia is not a Democracy. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Reading through this, it looks to me like you (Radiant) are the one making statements which I would consider to be attacks. Just an outside view. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - probably advert - Tεxτurε 14:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 18:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Jonathunder 01:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we can all agree that ExamDiff is no longer an advert, not after the rewrite. And Tony Sidaway explained about the program's popularity. While it will not make it to the Brittanica, it's certainly notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia with nearly 700,000 pages! So what's your argument for why this should be deleted?? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree it's no longer an advert. It is a simple man page. Wikipedia is not a repository of man pages. Jonathunder 01:31, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... do you really think it's a man page? Well, while I was rewriting it I guess I was so determined for it to not be an advert that I made it go all the way to the other side and become a man page: advertisement--------neutral------X-man page. I think that while we shouldn't leave the article as is, we shouldn't delete it. I'm determined to make a decent article about ExamDiff, even if it's just a stub. What do you think? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The current page looks like an advert to me still, or part of an advert, the "Technical details" section often found in online ads for software. The presnece of a list of 'features" simply screams advertisement to me. But even if rewritten, I see no reason in the article or in anything said here to indicate that this utility is itself notable. The genreal class of diff utilities is of course notabel, and pershps this product could be mentioned in a "popular implementations" section in such an article. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --zippedmartin 01:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• If you search for this program on download.com, which is a major distributor of freeware programs such as this one, it shows that it has about 120k downloads. It has also been reviewed by the CNET editors on the same site. Absent a really good set of objective criteria for determining notability of software, I think that's probably enough to justify a keep. (vote pasted from aborted discussion at the other vfd) ESkog 03:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ESkog. -- DS1953 04:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is an ad, not an article. No indication of notability or widespread use is in the article. There are many "diff" utilities, and i see no reason why this particualr one should have an article, particualrly this article. DES ^(talk) 06:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; if kept, redirect. This is an ad; although not quite speediable. Septentrionalis 15:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete In my opinion, this piece of software would not be in a list (short, medium or long) of the most notable software applications. Reads like an ad. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Having looked at the article, the related article diff, the previous VfD, the VfU, the curiously abandoned second VfD, and considered WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and the comments here, I think the page at ExamDiff should be made a redirect to the article diff, in which a couple of sentences may be written about ExamDiff as an example of the diff utility. UninvitedCompany's comment is compelling: this is not something that meets the notability requirements of an encyclopedia to deserve a page of its own. The only reason I do not vote for the page itself to be deleted outright is that I think it serves a useful purpose as a redirect.—Encephalon | ^ζ  02:28:30, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
• After reading all the comments I'd say Redirect to Diff. Although i'm still wondering what will happen to ExamDiff Pro after deletion or redirect, as it is almost the same piece of software. And good luck for the closing admin. feydey 01:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable software product. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:21, 29 August 2005 (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.