Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of free geophysics 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of free geophysics software

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prodded by Pppery (talk · contribs) with reference to the following precedents:

The previous AfDs concerned overreliance on primary sources and OR with too many technical details and non-notable entries. Then the article was deprodded by Christian75 (talk · contribs) without explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Software, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to be relatively in line with pages like Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities and Comparison of web server software. And if we're referencing old VfD's there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent software for a 'keep' example from when we were young. That said those rationales are... Let's just say we've grown. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument here. The precedents I referenced are from this year, so contrasting them with ones from 2006 is not convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it's not an other stuff exists arguments. Looking at the links I chose shows a general trend of keeping comparisons of actual, stand alone software. The links in the nominators statement to other AfDs are all for add-ons, enhancements, plugins and the like. Illustrating a difference in community consensus on qualitatively different contents and saying this is more like one set then the other is not an other stuff exists rationale. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 16:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria I used to decide whether to PROD or AfD on October 28 was generally whether most of the entries themselves were notable, which these one's aren't. The fact that only entries for add-ons, enhancements, plugins and the like seems to have been a coincidence. The most recent time a AfD for an article of this style was closed as keep was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software (2020), so there's really not enough data to make the point you are trying to make with respect to current consensus . Also note that I would support deleting Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software for the same reason if it were brought back to AfD, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder; this is no better than the lists deleted there or in several of my other recent AfDs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a persuasive argument here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments. I think of my argument for deletion as more of an incorporation by reference of the delete arguments in previous AfDs, which I believe continue to apply here, not merely "we deleted X so we should also delete Y". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with citing previous AfDs as a reason for deletion here. The main problem to me is that there are no independent, secondary and reliable coverage of free geophysics software as a whole. Thus, this fails WP:NLIST. With regards to concerns of including entries that do not have their own article, it should be okay since criteria for inclusion in lists should be weaker than criteria for inclusion as an article. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:49, 20 November 2022 (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.