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 redirect to Comparison of ISO image software. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISO image software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nomination description: This page is content fork of Comparison of ISO image software and contains similar information, only formatted differently. There is no need to keep two copies of the same information.

Reason for re-nomination: I am renominating this page for deletion, because the last nomination was abruptly halted when Hm2k (talk · contribs) claimed that he has merged the pages. Well, he tricked us: He just copied the contents of Comparison of ISO image software into List of ISO image software, thus causing the original reason for nomination (similarity of contents) to remain unresolved. He further reverted my attempt to delete the duplicate information. I suggest the nominated contents to be deleted. (I'm also suggesting disciplinary action but that is beside the matter.) Fleet Command (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The list and comparison contain different information, I will restore the merge. Once merged the content can be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Remerge has now been completed. If you would like to discuss improving the content, please use the talk page. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying. We do not fall for your lies this time. There is something called "page history" . You didn't merge. You just appended. Content Fork problem persists. Hiding the problem doesn't solve anything. Content Fork issues should be discussed and resolved through consensus not through such acts of bad faith. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparison of ISO image software now redirects to List of ISO image software#Comparison. Armbrust (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Fleet Command[reply]

Not anymore. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge was completed. Content concerns can be discussed using talk. This can be closed. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another deception. Perhaps our fellow Wikipedian Hm2k (talk · contribs) is under the impression that we are computers or robots and hiding the problem would solve it. It is not. We are human editors aimed to deliver reliable knowledge to human. Procedures like deletion and talk page are all means to aid in this endeavor and not means with which to bash one another. To that end, the problem of content fork (presence of duplicate contents) on Wikipedia, which hampers the effective delivery of knowledge and causes confusing and loss of time, must be resolved: Either by deleting a copy of duplicate content or by proper merging.

Now, Hm2k has selected a deceptive path: To trick us into thinking that the issue is resolved by keeping both copies of problematic content in the same article and undoing any attempt to resolve this issue, only because he has personal problems with me, FleetCommand (talk · contribs).

Either delete one of the two copy or merge properly. Only then, I will abandon the matter.

Thanks

— Fleet Command (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, Hm2k: Threatening to ban me from Wikipedia, for doing the right thing, won't stop me from doing the right thing. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling troll and won't be engaging you in discussion any further. Intervention is required, you have been reported. --Hm2k (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I commented out some borderline personal attacks. Let's try to stay civil here. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly. There should only be a single table of information (with a single row for each program).
The content belongs at the page title [Comparison of ...], though it might be better to merge the content into the [List of ...] article first, as it has the oldest/original information, and then pagemove/rename that to [Comparison of ...] once the merge is properly completed.
Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing if you'd like advice on the specifics of formatting, layout, column content, etc.
Be nice, be calm. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the comparison article. The comparison article is more mature and this list is just redundant. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Intent[edit]

I copy-edited this list a long time ago. I standardized the descriptions somewhat, using defined words to indicate capabilities. I did not intend for this article to be a comparison but a true list. A true list has benefits such as

Lists are easy to add on to
Lists focus on descriptions

I agree that this article has been turned into a comparison and has become nearly redundant, although the descriptions here are still formatted nicely and display better than the crammed-up table in the comparison article. If we do not have volunteer support to return this article to list format, then it should probably be deleted. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The merge is good enough, but we should retain the page history & also have only a single article. I'm surprised at the vitriolic comments here. --Karnesky (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (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.