Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of iOS e-book reader software Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_iOS_e-book_reader_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. Despite some SPAs that fundamentally lacked a guideline based argument, there is still no seeming appetite for anything other than keep. Mkdw^talk 22:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of iOS e-book reader software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is perilously close to advertising. Most of the software listed does not even merit its own wikipedia article Deb (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author of the comparison, I'd first like to state that I'm not affiliated with any of the listed software. I don't see it as advertising because it's basically a feature-based comparison which doesn't favour any of the mentioned software either. People have commented favourably upon the article and informed me how useful it was to them. The comparison also had a good rating in the feedback tool. I don't really see any good reason to delete it. Philantrop (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree that it's potentially useful, provided it's kept completely up to date at all times. The question is whether it's encyclopaedic.Deb (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's being kept up as good as time and reasonable effort permit. You'll see in the log that changes are indeed frequent. Furthermore, I'm, of course, open for suggestions. As a side-note; I would have appreciated it, btw, had you left me a note on my talk page with your concerns first. Philantrop (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that non-notable entries can be removed if that is appropriate, how does this have any unfixable problems? If your problem is with the very concept of a comparison table for various commercial products, I suggest you do a search for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of" to see how past AFDs have treated them. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Some of those debates have ended in deletion, some have not. So what? Deb (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You tell me; it's your nomination. What do you think distinguishes this one from the ones that were kept, such that it should be deleted instead of developed further? postdlf (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The ones that were kept" are irrelevant. That argument is called "stuff exists". Any article may or may not be deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, and the outcome is generally decided by who happens to participate in the debate. I happen to believe that this article is inherently unsuitable for inclusion. Deb (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure at all why you think this is "inherently" unsuitable for inclusion. The article is intended as a reference for people looking for reading software on their iOS device. On that level it is eminently successful. Its not advertising, its not commercially based: the *only* possible thing that I could see which might tweak someone's ire is the inclusion of a price listing.Kyteflyer (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deb, you're missing the point of my question, and you are talking around the subject rather than elaborating on your rationale as I am trying to get you to do. So far, you have yet to progress beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE and a CLEANUP complaint.

          Are you saying that all product comparison articles are "inherently unsuitable for inclusion"? In which case AFDs regarding other such articles are very relevant, and it's not at all persuasive to retort "OTHERSTUFF" if your argument is aimed broadly at a whole category of content that includes articles the community has already discussed and kept. If you wish to disagree with those prior AFDs, it would be helpful if you would say so expressly and address the arguments that were made in the past. If you are not trying to reach so far as to call all product comparison articles advertising in nature or violative of NOTCATALOG, then please be specific regarding what is wrong with this one in particular. postdlf (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          • It's true, I find it hard to see the point of your comments, but let me try to explain how I came at this particular article as opposed to the others that you believe are comparable. You may notice that User:NixMobilTeam made numerous recent edits to this article while trying to add credibility to the article Ubooks. I think this user name says it all, but articles like this are an invitation to the purveyors of non-notable software (and other products) to get their products into the public eye. I am not going to be going through every other article of the same type to decide whether or not they are catalogues; this one certainly is. I have a major concern that people will start to come to wikipedia looking for information to help them decide what to buy, assuming that the information in the article will always be accurate and up-to-date. You are free to disagree, as is everyone else, but please don't try to suggest that I have made this deletion nomination lightly or indeed without recourse to logic. The process requires far too much effort for me to do that.Deb (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can judge your nomination only based on what you have articulated, not by what you may or may not have thought while you posted it. You shouldn't be surprised or put off when someone asks you to explain your rationale further. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTCATALOG is a valid criticism of the article, as that policy explicitly recommends against including prices. The other major problem with the article is that the lists contain entries with no WP articles of their own. Per the policy on lists, WP:LIST, and also mentioned at the beginning in WP:NOTCATALOG, these sorts of list-based articles are for organizing and comparing other articles. Thus the products with only external links should probably be deleted from the list. A third problem is that the article doesn't seem to have an intro section or a link to a main article establishing the notability of the topic of IOS e-book readers in general. But getting rid of prices, deleting unsuitable list entries, and adding an intro are a matter of editing and all are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. I don't doubt that the topic of IOS e-book readers is notable with many articles discussing features, associated storefronts, etc. A likely notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Does NOTCATALOG mandate or just recommend against prices, as it is useful to know if the app is free, cheap or not so cheap when evaluating? It's a bit of a niche, but not that small a one... – 5.64.195.134 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't a catalog, its a comparison between the various aspects of a notable type of software. Dream Focus 00:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I see no unfixable problems raised by the nominator nor evident from the article itself, and no problem with having such a comparison article in general. Any NOTCATALOG issues (if there are any; I think it's a stretch to liken this to a product catalog) could be fixed by removing non-notable products (though that is not always necessary so long as there is some secondary source coverage, even if that coverage falls short of meriting the product an article) or removing prices (though comparing free and non-free may also be relevant, and even prices sometimes get commented on in secondary source coverage). That's all for editors to hash out through normal processes, not a deletion concern at all (as is true of most claimed NOT violations I have seen). Finally, the nominator's concern about editors using it to "add credibility" to a particular product is an unpersuasive WP:SUSCEPTIBLE-type claim, again fixable by NPOV monitoring and editing. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very useful comparison table, doesn't seem promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.245.34 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a well - established type of WP article. It has to be done carefully, but it does not have to include only products with a WP article of their own. Rather, this is an appropriate way of providing information without having to do an article on borderline - notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 19 May 2013 (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.