Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of shopping cart 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 keep. Consensus is that while the article meets the relevant notability standards, it needs much work to bring it up to our editorial standards. ansh 666 02:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of shopping cart software

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and filled with what appears to be WP:OR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information that could go on forever. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It needs improvements for WP:V, but meets notability standards very well. It meets the notability standards so well, in fact, that it's the self same reason why I think the list is actually a VERY discriminating list. (Only entries with Wikipedia articles have been allowed it seems). Therefore, I disagree with this notion that the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If that is the main basis for deletion, then this should be reason enough to think differently. Anybody could easily call any list indiscriminate with the claim that it could go on forever, but not when the list is effectively limited to "Wiki link" entries only. Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Huggums537, certainly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is filled with list/comparison articles of this type, and they provide a useful resource. Needs better sourcing, but much of it is not WP:OR. No reason to delete. Greenman (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard in the computing area of Wikipedia to have comparison articles like this. See Category:Software comparisons for the dozens of other articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above discussion. It's perfectly notable information and such comparison pages are very well established. The issues are merely regarding sources. — LucasVB | Talk 06:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity, if not appropriate for Wikipedia. Original research is allowed there. It might be a useful research/resource to list under v:School:Business Michael Ten (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact this article could easily fit in on a money saving 'comparison' site does not mean it can't also be a perfectly reasonable article. I would appreciate some way of defining what features we are supposed to be comparing in a NPOV manner though, people often balance such lists to show that their products have more features by including features the opposition never intended to be in their products. It is also very long and should be considered for splitting. As has already been pointed out, every entry on the list is notable, and this type of list is not generally considered indiscriminate. Dysklyver 09:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, WP:OR itself is not an argument for deletion and that should be solved by improving the article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Indiscriminate list. An impressive body of work, but this is not an encyclopedic treatment, it is a comparative list of features. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject here is notable, but Wikipedia is not a place for "Comparison of..." type articles. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be pretty good arguments for comparative lists if there were only something from WP:NOT that wasn't conducive to them. However, there's nothing I could find at WP:NOT that doesn't allow for comparative lists, which is why I'm assuming neither one of you actually quoted anything from WP:NOT for the comparison list argument? One editor did link to WP:NOT, but provided no quote related to comparison lists. Huggums537 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit and rewrite. The biggest issue here is that the only people who are qualified to keep this up to date are employees of the companies listed. This is going to encourage companies to edit their own info. The second biggest issue is there's really no independent sourcing for the vast majority of this info. Anyone can say they support any feature and have it listed on their web site, even if it's not available yet, and most people wouldn't know. If you can get beyond those two big issues, then this needs to be edited so that the different parameters are explained, and if a feature is included with every vendor or all but one or two, that doesn't need to be an entire column of yeses. That's better as a line of prose. And, are all these features important? It's very cluttered. A question better answered by someone more familiar with these products than me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 10 November 2017 (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.