Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of backup 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. — CharlotteWebb 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of backup software

fails;

• Wikipedia is not a repository of links
• Wikipedia is not a directory Hu12 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a "mere collection of links." It is sorted and there are short descriptions of some links. I fail to see how this list is any worse than many others in Category:Lists of software & precedent has shown that many of these lists are kept. It is true that many of the articles in that category are in continual need of cleanup, but this particular list isn't that bad (thanks, in part, to GraemeL who removed linkspam). --Karnesky 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While I'm generally of the opinion that articles such as this would be much better as a category, there are a couple of regular editors who are making efforts to sort through the redlinks making stubs for the worthy and removing the non-notable. After some initial conflict on external link spam, we reached a reasonable compromise and I think it will be kept tidy in the future. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article may not be very incomplete or in-depth, but it's more than just a mere collection of links. With some expansion, it could have some potential, such as mentioning what makes each piece of software different or unique. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment List of backup software, unlike List of dog breeds is unencyclopedic, incomplete and in violation Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which offers no other content beyond links to other commercial articles and websites. It would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. This list is a violation of . However if kept, it will continue to be a future target for unsourced or self-promotional additions and require more maintenance effort than a category. Consider the Advantages of categories. One such precedent [1] which was deleted and is now catagory. Clearly to prevent List of backup software from continuing to be a linkspam trap and from attracting article spam in the future, Delete and make it a Catagory. Hu12 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a comment or a delete?

• The list is organized by type of backup program (which is only possible with subcategories)
• The list comments on products (which isn't possible with cats)
• Is being used to write stubs from red links (which we can't use a cat for)
• Includes non-commercial software
• Includes mostly notable software (red links are purged after a while & deleted articles are removed from the list)

Also what is "this list in violation of ____"? I'd vote for the deletion of this list when/if we had a good Comparison of backup software. Until we do, it serves as a useful index to both present and requested articles.--Karnesky 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One and a half years old and the article has grown to become a Listcrufty red linked directory of backup software which is of interest to a very limited number of people. From the points you mentioned above, it sounds like your trying to create either a directory or comparisons of backup software. We all agree Wikipedia is not a directory, so Why not remove it as you did last February with List of accounting software, and create comparison of backup software (That would make for an encyclopedic read), Untill then, implement this directory into a catagory.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states articles should not exist only to describe the nature or services offered, List of backup software exists only to descibe the nature and service backup software offers. Hu12 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For List of accounting software, I merged the list into the comparison before deletion. If a comparison page is made that is a superset of this list (or at least contained all blue linked products), I'd agree with deletion. (Furthermore, list of accounting software had only a list of blue links in alphabetical order--there was no categorization or potentially notable products to write stubs for.)

But there isn't yet a comparison & so deletion is premature. This list doesn't exist ONLY to describe services offered. As has often been said, it exists to serve as an index to both written and requested articles in WP. --Karnesky 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Any index that contains almost 50% empty articles (30 blue 27 red, excuding uncategorized) hardly serves its purpose as an index. Editing efforts would be much better spent placing this drectory into its own catagory and developing the 30 current articles to their full potential. Hu12 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• So what ratio would you define as the cutoff? The redlinks are one reason why we can't merely create a cat--these are requested articles. The largest problem, I think, is with the "Managed backup service providers" section that was merged in. It has fewer blue links than red links and is the source for ~60% of the red links in the article. I think we need a semi-objective way to cleanup that particular section. --Karnesky 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this seems like a fair list of software, and it's not just a bunch of external links. There is real content here. I don't see a reason to delete. It meets WP:LIST because it does provide information, aids with navigation, and according to prior editors, it is used for improvement of Wikipedia. Mister.Manticore 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are too many notable tools/packages to include in Backup software or Backup. Sorting, filtering, and annotating neutrally makes it encyclopedic. I would suggest developing a rubric to help editors make neutral filtering judgements. Austin Murphy 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, my filtering rubric is remove all redlinks that are up for longer than six months & remove anything that has had an article deleted from WP. GraemeL and I have compromised that there will be no external links to commercial and proprietary products, but that the URLs will appear in HTML comments so that subs can be created. --Karnesky 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIWis that links are of a lesser degree of criteria for notability and non-commercial, and so on than articles, and the appropriate thing to do with a dubiously notable article about a product is to make it a link. And that red links is the source of future growth. But Karnesky & I take opposite positions on almost all aspects of this. DGG 08:30, 10 December 2006 (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.