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.
Delete This has no reliable sources. It is only useful to those looking for this software, and it is spam. Surely shopping can be left to commercial sites, and not an encyclopedia. the_undertowtalk02:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking out my delete opinion for three reasons; external links cleaned up, price column removed, and several editors appear committed to watch the article for spam. (Requestion15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
MrZaius, thank you for cleaning up those external links. The article does look much better now. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that "Availability" column with prices. Something is just WP:NOT right about it. (: If that column was removed and if a couple editors could commit to keeping this article on their watchlist for spam then I would be inclined to change my opinion on this AfD. (Requestion17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree about the prices, and have removed them from those entries that had them. (I wouldn't be opposed to providing approximate prices if they varied by more than an order of magnitude, but the few that there were were fairly similar.) Someone still ought to go over that column and make sure it contains accurate information on the pricing structure of the products (free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / whatever). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prices should be removed. They change often and are too difficult to keep up to date. Plus there is different pricing depending on educational, government, business use, etc.. And sales, rebates, coupons, etc.. General pricing info such as free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / shareware / whatever, is OK. That is common in charts on wikipedia. --Timeshifter01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the linkfarm argument. I think it is a linkfarm if there is only a list of programs and links to those programs. But once features are described, then we have a real, in-depth, encyclopedic wikipedia article based on the notable topic of time tracking software. Links back to the home pages of the programs are then just citation/reference links for verification and keeping the features info up-to-date on the chart. Please also see my comments farther down on notability and about what programs to include on the list. --Timeshifter02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification. See this diff. The edit summary for the diff was "rm linkcruft/nonnotable members of the list. See WP:NOT's discussion of linkfarms". I believe the deletion of most of the chart by Mrzaius after the AfD process began was done in good-faith. But I think all that was needed was to remove the prices and a few redlinks. Here is the revision before the deletion. The bulk of the chart and the citation/reference links for all the entries did not need to be removed. Not every item on a wikipedia list or chart has to have its own wikipedia page. Only the chart topic needs to be notable, not every entry for that topic. I think it is better form to put the citation/reference links after the item names, and not to make the item names clickable. But that is a matter of taste, and not a reason for deletion of a chart. --Timeshifter09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I think I understand your argument. Basically you are saying that WP:NOT#LINK does not apply to comparison tables because features are described. I know a lot of editors that would disagree with that interpretation. (Requestion15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. Actually, I was referring to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and what distinguished a directory from an encyclopedic wikipedia list or chart. But now I see that WP:NOT#LINK also applies, and I see the cause for much confusion. It needs to be clarified. As does Wikipedia:External links. It is a guideline that does not apply to citation/reference links. --Timeshifter22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no worse than most other Comparison of... articles; but needs rewrite to avoid becoming just a list with little or no relevant information. See Comparison of text editors for a good example of how it could look. Also a comment to Someguy1221. Although Wikipedia is not a shopping guide/link repository/linkfarm, a comparison page is perfectly valid as it does actually provide the reader with relevant and important information not always covered in other articles, and without having to read through the articles in a complete category to gather the same info. Bjelleklang - talkBug Me16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In light of recent changes to this page, I have changed my opinion. I felt this was merely a shopping guide due to statements such as "easy to use" and "user-friendly." With these highly subjective statements removed, as well as entries that had no sources (beyond the company website) or wikipedia articles of their own for easy verification, I have changed my vote to keep. Someguy122119:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after the cleanup. I haven't looked at the past revisions, but as it is now the page seems like a fairly reasonable comparison list with no serious NPOV issues. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The topic of the list or chart has to be specific. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A link back to the home page of an item on the list or chart is allowed just as any citation/reference link is allowed. Where people get confused is when the list drifts over into subjective analysis and reviews. Then the list or comparison chart becomes advertising or negative advertising. Then it needs to be cleaned up to remove the advertising language, reviews, and hype. This chart, Comparison of wiki farms, went through 3 deletion attempts until all these issues were discussed and addressed. I urge people to read the last deletion discussion where it was finally decided to keep the chart. Jimbo Wales created Wikia.com, a wiki farm. I found it somewhat amusing that I had to explain to wikipedians that the topics of wiki software and wiki farms are notable. Not every wiki farm on the list is as notable as wikia.com, but lists and charts do not have to have all notable items on them. Otherwise, wikipedia lists and charts would become supporters of only the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would be at a great disadvantage. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That guideline says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. It is the list topic that is notable, not necessarily all those people listed. Concerning software lists and charts: They are not shopping charts or advertising, because the charts do not discuss the relative merits of one feature versus another, nor do they discuss how well any particular program implements any particular feature. It would be impossible for wikipedia to fairly do such subjective analysis anyway. The feature columns in many charts do show the state of the art, and are thus encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia has the necessary large numbers of WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hyperbole. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter00:00, 16 May 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.