Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of freeware (2nd nomination)

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. B music ian 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware

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

Unmaintainable list duplicating the functionality of category:freeware. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notice all the blue links? It meets all requirements for a list article. The rule is you don't destroy a list because a category exist, no reason why both can't exist. And believing the list is "unmaintainable" is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that being a duplicate of category is not a valid deletion rationale on its own, the scope of this list is by far too broad (see WP:SALAT) to be at least marginally useful and making maintainability a fairly valid concern: this list omits more entries then it contains and quite a few are red links. It can't be kept up to date without the enormous work which nobody conducted since the previous AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incomplete isn't a reason to delete it either. Most links are blue, with very few red ones. Anything not listed you can add yourself if you want them there. And its scope is not broad. It only list freeware which has its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 14:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that for quite a long time nobody did it and there is no indication that anyone would. I would consider my work on maintaining such a broad list a waste of time, just as you do. This list will always be outdated and incomplete enough to be regarded as useless at least, though the word "misleading" is a way more appropriate here, as the reader would generally consider it to be a complete list of freeware-related articles on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duplication, as already stated above by both Dream Focus and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (the nominator), is not a reason for deletion per WP:CLN. Although the list certainly needs work and hasn't been receiving attention, I don't see how the list is unmaintainable. One issue in particular which will affect the number of visitors and therefore potential maintainers is the almost complete lack of incoming links. According to the toolbox there is a single incoming link from List of free and open source software packages and a redirect which is not linked from anywhere else. Like virtually all lists and articles it needs improvement, the best way to kick start that is to just get on with it and link to the list in question as much as possible. I'd volunteer for that but I already have a handful of lists under my wing which need updating. Someone another 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could add templates/notes/whatever that it's incomplete and should only include applications with a WP page. But it's possibly of use to someone, and could be maintained. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So the doubt in the maintainability of this article prevails. So, the person who is going to update it to link all of the freeware articles on Wikipedia, daily check for new freeware items added and removed and etc for at least a year, please, step out. Or at least link the user page of the person who is going to do it. This article need daily attention, so unless such person exists, it is unmaintainable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that list of requirements is grounded in the reality of WP as a work in progress maintained by volunteers. Once a list is up and running it doesn't require constant updating and isn't likely to receive it, that doesn't mean that upkeep is impossible or that the list is without function. The vast majority of open-ended lists like this will never be complete and will never be up-to-date. Someone another 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you believe it is maintainable is not relevant. That isn't a valid reason to delete something. Many non-list articles have outdated information in them. Dream Focus 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I see a huge difference between outdated articles and wildly incomplete list with no hope for completion. And the breadth of selection criterion is a perfectly valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the borg thing go? This is a list. This is a valid list. This list will never be complete, but do help to complete this list. Something like that. I initiated this list, and although I do not feel as the most significant contributor to the list, I do feel somewhat compelled to point out how valid the topic is. I think it is just a list, essential to cataloguing of certain notable subjects, including some of my own, unaffiliatory, favorites and I'd like that sort, the really handy and successful ones, available to people as they have been to me with their stories and if not here, where we list everything about everything, where? In mind is defrag software for instance, process explorer etc., and if the freeware on this list has since become obsolete by open source wares, I'd like to know that fact too as evolutionary history, rather than just delete as though never important, but it's not just the usefulness of the software that is important here. Commercial interests prove themselves unreliable in so many instances, if not now then at some time, and comparable open source is often more attractive, but certain topics remain of solid importance for the pure relevant historical information of it and freeware is the forerunner of open source if nothing else. My gain in accessing this list is personal only, but I can't think off the top of my head that this list is a particularly bad idea, and could never for the life of me understand how nobody had created it before, or how it wasn't filled up by a hundred freeware boffins long before now. This is the stuff of the dream no matter how embroilled in the nightmare. I for one find the games lists, freeware and open source, indispensible for some entertainment. I will become violently defensive if anyone beats up the freeware games list. Anyway, Before open source there was freeware. If we do not stand on the shoulders of giants, we are probably stuck in the mud. What exactly is wrong with it? Do you not find the subject of interest? Do you find it to be choked by non essentials? There's no way a list of freeware is irrelevant in and of itself. I don't know about favouring a category. Apparently that is an unnacceptable argument according to the previous deletion discussion? It wasn't pursued. ~ R.T.G 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid list, as the others have said. It is policy that duplication between a list and category isacceptable; I think recent practice is that it is strongly encouraged in most cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 March 2012 (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.