Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software that uses Subversion Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Software_that_uses_Subversion

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 per WP:OUTCOMES and as a maintainable and useful list. Bearian 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software that uses Subversion

This is essentially just a long list of external links. A linkfarm, nothing else. A prime example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Even if these were internal links, there would be very little rationale for this article's existence. This is essentially the list of external links which were deemed inapproprate for the main article per WP:LINKS, taken out and forked into a separate article; hardly the right way to proceed. The list itself is unmaintanable. Again, this is just a long list of external links; not very useful. Henrik Ebeltoft 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to be sure not all links are external, but the vast majority are. A self-standing linkfarm is just as bad as a linkfarm inside the main article (under "External Links" or similar). Henrik Ebeltoft 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article exists only because I had better things to do with my time than edit war with the people at Subversion who kept reverting its removal from that article. Happy for it to go away entirely. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris, that's why the discussion page exists. If you take the time to discuss major changes (in this case material that had been around for 2 years) rather than simply deleting them, you might find yourself in less "wars". Cshay 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, but possibly shrink it down somewhat. If this was just external links I could see making it go, but quite a number of the links are for products which have articles. StuffOfInterest 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because some of the links are wikilinks is no reason to keep. That's what we have categories for. Fix that, and all you have left is a linkfarm. Delete. -Amatulic 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep List of portable software solution. Delete unless someone is willing/able to take on cleaning up all the non-notable external links, keeping just a managed list of notable blue-link content. It's a time sink for someone to do (I'm still cleaning up/down that list, but it's 100 times better now than it was at AfD time). But it can net us a good list if someone stridently takes it on. Otherwise, bye. So-- conditional keep. Who wants it? • Lawrence Cohen 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since Chris started the page, the only substantial changes were for two external and two internal links to be added. This hardly seems to be unmaintainable spam bait. This is not merely a list of links, as it contains short summaries of software. Lists such as this are useful to start stubs. The external links should be removed (or commented out), but it seems possible to clean up this article instead of deleting it. --Karnesky 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page existed for 2 years incorporated into the Subversion article until it was recently moved out by Chris. It was very useful to provide information and links to other pages on Wikipedia and external links.Cshay 01:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but... the current version contains 60 (yes, that's right, sixty) external links and 24 internal links (not counting redlinks). To me this looks just like a glorified linkfarm. To be sure, the list of external links is useful; but... Wikipedia is not DMOZ! I'm not sure about this being a spambait; I'm quite ready to admit that the links are useful, well-chosen, not spammy, etc. etc., but, still... it just looks like one of those things that Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Henrik Ebeltoft 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments List of portable software may not be such a good example: it is a well-organized list of internal links, which is of course perfectly acceptable, and indeed very welcome. Further, it seems to me that a notion exists among some editors that when an article accumulates a non-encyclopedic or otherwise undesirable list, e.g. list of trivia items (discouraged per WP:TRIVIA), external links (discouraged per WP:LINKS) or something similar, then a solution is to remove the list from the main article and move it into a dedicated page. This hardly seems to me the proper way to proceed.
- However, if this article is pruned of the excessive external links and organized in a sensible way, I have no real objection to it, provided someone keeps an eye on it, to prevent accumulation of spam. Henrik Ebeltoft 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please have a look at the history of the article; the reason it was split was because editors such as User:Cshay were opposed (on inclusionist/ WP:ILIKEIT grounds) to removing it entirely, and nobody was apparently at all interested in cleaning it up or maintaining it. On the other hand, there was less opposition to a split. I took the path of least resistance, because my goal was to turn Subversion into something other than a huge list of pointless bullets. There's no indication that the users most vocal about keeping the article are planning on giving it any more attention in future than they are now. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 31 October 2007 (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.