Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of spreadsheet software Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_spreadsheet_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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of spreadsheet software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for Wikipedia. This may fall in the scope of Wikipedia is not a guide. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a note, there's an entire category (Category:Software comparisons) of very similar articles, with 182 entries in total.--Hongkongresident (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nominator gives no valid reason for deletion & doesn't say that he even wants this deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should I have to say I want this deleted? That has nothing to do with the merits of the article. Why should my opinion by more important than everyone else's just because I nominated something? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BEFORE. If you do not want something deleted, do not nominate it for deletion. It appears to me that you can withdraw your nomination & we can close this. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to elaborate your concerns about the article. --Karnesky (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was unsure about this article's appropriateness in Wikipedia, and felt it deserved discussion. I still think it does. I consider a good discussion of the article's merits more important than "winning" a debate. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm all for discussion! But what specific points are worth discussing? If you want to discus whether software comparisons are encyclopedic, this isn't the best venue to do that. If you want to discuss specific points about this article in particular, I haven't really seen you raise them. --Karnesky (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Respectfully, "I'm not sure if this [comparison article] is appropriate for Wikipedia" (especially when there are so many comparisons in WP) is a policy issue. It shouldn't be discussed for each comparison article separately. I request you leave these articles alone until the policy is clarified. In general, a comparison is not a guidebook, IMO, so "Wikipedia is not a guidebook" may not apply here. An example of a guidebook in the above policy is a travel guide to Paris. This is a completely different concept than a comparison. — HowardBGolden (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no problems with a comparision of technical information like this, as long as it is not used to draw any conclusions. Yoenit (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I thought that this was going to be a slam-dunk DELETE based on the title, but I can see the utility of the article. I'm not sure whether it belongs in an encyclopedia. Are we supposed to be Consumer Reports now, comparing stereos and apple peelers? That said, I don't have a firm opinion about this article's inclusion-worthiness, one way or another. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to look at past deletion discussion on the other comparison articles, most of which are kept. Consumer Reports performs their own research. The comparisons in Wikipedia should not do that. The information should be verifiable. Comparisons here often merely summarize the content of the articles for the notable items that are compared. As such, comparisons provide a way to organize and navigate through multiple related subjects. Our policies encourage this. --Karnesky (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as it's kept up to date: keep. --Dan-yell (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfectly appropriate comparison article, as for other products. It's not a guide: a guide gives recommendations. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks fine to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, extremely useful; I depend on wikipedia for articles of the 'list of X software' format - unregistered lurker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.220.46 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (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.