Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_risk_analysis_Microsoft_Excel_add-ins

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 no consensus. WP:IAR isn't a reason for keeping or deleting unless there is special circumstances, which this article doesn't meet. Other than that, no consensus though a merge might sound reasonable. Secret ^account 03:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins

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

The article is a list of non-notable software Ronz (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy There is a lot of good information in this article. But the WP policy on list-based articles like this is that the entries on the list should be notable according to, e.g., WP:GNG, and should ideally be subjects of articles themselves. In this article, all the entries appear to be cited with external links. It would be a worthy project to go through these and figure out which add-ins are in fact notable, but as it stands there is no demonstrated notability. This article would be a good candidate for userfication for further development without the threat of deletion; alas I don't have the time to take it on myself. --Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually a complete list of software used in risk analysis, a very important area of business and science. It is the ONLY complete list I have come across, it is accurate, well-referenced, unbiased and current. It's very hard to understand how its removal could improve Wikipedia or benefit mankind. I don't understand the objection at all unless it is driven by someone with a vested interest in seeing it disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.200.251 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between, for instance, Comparison_of_raster_to_vector_conversion_software and Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins is that most or all entries in the lists of the first article are linked to Wikipedia articles on those entries, whereas none of the entries in the second article are linked to Wikipedia articles. It is an important difference, as list-based articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be lists of topics with Wikipedia articles. This policy is laid out in the Manual of Style at the WP:LIST page. Any entries on the lists without links to associated Wikipedia articles could be deleted. For instance in the Comparison of raster to vector conversion software page, there is a WiseImage entry that has no article linked; this entry could be, and perhaps should be, deleted from the list.

For what it is worth, I very much sympathize with your position. There is a lot of good information in this article, it was a good bit of work to organize and write up, and the information is obviously useful for those interested in the topic. Personally, I think there should be a place on Wikipedia for these sorts of articles; that verifiability, not notability, should be good enough for comparison articles. But that is not the policy at Wikipedia and we aren't going to be able to change the policy in the the context of this particular discussion. This is why I suggested userfication; a keen editor could figure out which add-ins are notable (see WP:N for details) by Wikipedia standards and provide evidence in the form of articles with reliable sources WP:RS for the entries that that have then. It would be a shorter list, but the resulting article would be robust against those editors that would seek to delete it. --Mark viking (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I would propose that this software list is largely notable. My understanding of the notability requirement is that references must exist, but the article doesn't necessarily have to include them to be considered notable. This is a specialized area which I am currently learning about, and many of these tools are industry standard tools in finance, project management, enterprise risk management, and technical fields. I'm confident the references to support notability are out there. The theory behind their function is described here: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Monte_Carlo_method This list is also referenced by this page on probabilistic risk assessment: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Probabilistic_risk_assessment I believe this content is both valuable and notable and the page should be included in Wikipedia for further development and editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBorgfeld (talk • contribs) 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR - no one wants to delete this article, and there's no need to do it "because the rules say so" - we have a rule that say we don't have to. Another option is to merge the table into Decision-making_software where the requirement of notability won't destroy the encyclopedic, verifiable content; WP:PRESERVE agrees with this outcome. Diego (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I wasn't bold enough to declare ignore all rules myself, I would have no problems with keeping the article or preserving the information by merging into Decision-making_software. --Mark viking (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the reasons above.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an good candidate for WP:IAR - also as I read WP:LIST it is intended for simpler lists, and the notability requirement for list items is sensible to avoid indiscriminate addition of, for example, people, theories etc. This article contains more verfiable encyclopaedic content than that. Mcewan (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is obscure to some, but the article is well-sourced and therefore meets WP:N (although the merge proposed above wouldn't make the destination article too long). Miniapolis 17:28, 23 February 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.