Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft software applications Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Microsoft_software_applications

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Since it is pretty clear people would rather chisel through the weight of this list, I am withdrawing the nomination. This is not a snowball, but the end result would be same. It is pointless to continue discussing. --soum ^talk 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft software applications

~~Totally redundant to Category:Microsoft software. The category is a much easier tool to index Microsoft applications, without the extra hassle of manually synching the articles and the list.~~ soum ^talk 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. See closing reason. --soum ^talk 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't contain any information that the category doesn't already provide, I do not see the purpose of this article. ~ mazca ^talk 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the category giving types of software on one page; only the publisher`; this is one of the main problems with categories, and why we have lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are things called subcategories too. Things belonging to a certain type, use a suitable subcat. --soum ^talk 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories are not the same things; this list contains redlinks to likely notable packages. Redundancy is not a ground to delete indexing and reference pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it contains only a handful of redlinks, which can be tackled pretty easily. The problem here is the number of MS products that are NOT listed here, but are present and in fact even have articles. That makes the categories more "complete" than this list. Categories, unlike this list, would automatically gain newer applications, but manual effort is needed to synchronize this list, which is going to be a problem as more apps come out. And I know lists and cats are not same, but what does this list contain that a cat cannot? --soum ^talk 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. This is not an issue with the article itself; rather, it's addressed to the diligence of its maintainers. Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Supremely notable software publisher, and lists are not the same as categories. Might be more useful as a sortable table, however. — brighterorange (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, notability is not questioned. Usability and usefulness are. --soum ^talk 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information is provided here not available in the category; its hardly redundant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What information is provided here not available in categories? Category:Microsoft has a lot of subcategories for specialization. You want sorting by bundles, use subcats like Category:Microsoft Office, Category:Microsoft Windows, Category:Microsoft Visual Studio et al. You want organization by type? Use Category:Microsoft application programming interfaces and the like and so on. --soum ^talk 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see them all at once in a category. A category can't be improved to show a table with alternate highlighting, release dates, important updates, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase the question. Whats the difference between a cat and and a list that doesn't use the features you mentioned? And about them being all in one article - would you hunt what you require in that cesspool or would go for something more organized? --soum ^talk 05:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if what I'm seeking is a list of software developed by Microsoft, then I'd look for just that. The category can't provide that for me. But that aside, I hate categories; to me, they look like an ugly hack. They're good for grouping things together, but for human readability, nothing beats the raw editability of a list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:CLN. Lists and categories are not to be considered in conflict; rather, they should each be used to improve the other. Lists can contain elements that make it much more useful to human readers than their accompanying categories. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, of course they are. But the problem is this list does not do that. The organization structure is poor. Lots of redundancies, barely any logical navigational elements, no extra information that cannot be in categories. If lists were like List of Microsoft Windows components, they certainly cannot be replaced by categories. But in this case, the organization is better in the cetgories. In fact, even the navigational templates Template:Microsoft/doc are better organized. Plus its an incomplete list. Given the number of MS apps, maintenace and completeness will be a real PITA.--soum ^talk 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we should delete it rather than improve it? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You wanna take the burden of improving it? Be my guest. I will withdraw the nom right away. But unless someone takes the responsibility, nuking it and starting from a clean slate is a much better idea. That way the editor won't have to face the burden of dealing with so many articles right from the word go. --soum ^talk 04:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would, but this already seems to be the generally accepted format for software lists. List of Macintosh software, List of proprietary software for Linux, List of open source software packages, List of antivirus software, List of operating systems all follow this format. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no "accepted format" that comes in the way of improvement. You want to do something that improves a certain thing, nothing is stopping you. --soum ^talk 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There can be a lot of ways to make this more useful and usable. Group by bundles, intents, and others, provide more information like first release date, latest version, an one liner intro, provide sorting etc etc, but the huge list is preventing me from seeing the best possible organization that achieves all the goals. Thats why I nommed it. --soum ^talk 05:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fundamentally sound, could certainly be improved, but satisfies WP:CLS. I was unaware that editing articles is now considered a "hassle". --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not editing articles, but "editing articles to keep them in sync with a huge number of other articles, when the same thing can be done automatically." --soum ^talk 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really see how. Someone writes an article on something produced by Microsoft. They add it to the category. They add it to the list. Not complicated, not a hassle, and also produces a much more attractive article than the crapola that gets output for categories. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be salvaged and built into something more than just a bunch of interlinks. Gary King (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2008 (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.