Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of conjoint analysis software Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_conjoint_analysis_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 Speedy Deleted (G7) by Vanamonde93. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of conjoint analysis software

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance. Promotional at best. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could never understand why we entertain such articles when it comes to software tools but not for other types of tool. If anyone started an article called Comparison of pneumatic drills or Comparison of cheesegraters we would delete it in the blink of an eye because this is an encyclopedia, not a consumer guide. Why does the fact that tools are implemented in software make us treat them differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: So can I put you down as a delete?

--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it's a "delete", unless someone can answer my question as to why software tools should be treated differently from other tools, as seems to be what has always happened on Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, should be deleted. Sorry about the fuss it caused.Happybunny95 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G7 since author agrees with deletion. And remember WP:BITE, people; new editors can learn the ropes if we don't scare them away. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.