Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet forum 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 of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Internet forum software[edit]

This article is an annotated list of external links, and not appropriate to an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it has no references, and no information as to importance. —donhalcon^╤ 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is not indiscriminant, but a well-presented features list. References are implicit in external links to software web pages. Same vote as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers. bikeable (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bikeable's comment joshbuddy^talk 16:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. Grue 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, arguments arguing for the article's deletion are unpersuasive. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep, ~~as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also,~~ per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). --Karnesky
- The only point I'm making is a perfectly legitimate one, that non-encyclopedic articles don't belong in an encyclopedia. Last time I checked, making a legitimate request that an unencyclopedic page be deleted wasn't included in WP:POINT, which is concerned only with performing actions for the specific purpose of having those and similar actions criticized or banned. —donhalcon^╤ 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've removed my "speedy" vote, as I'll take you at your word. I still think your AfDs and prods were over-zealous. Some of your tagging was also over-zealous. This article should definitely be kept, as it fails any test for deletion. Perhaps it should be cleaned up--I will withold judgement until you are more specific as to what you wish to have cleaned up. --Karnesky 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful article. Rhobite 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We seem to have a working, de facto consensus that unencyclopedic articles do, *occasionally*, belong in an encyclopedia ; ) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - there's many more articles like this and this article serves a point of being a quick refrence to compare diffrent forua software. References might be needed, but thats a cleanup tag, not an AfD tag. NeoThermic 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, interesting, and well referenced. It'd be a shame to lose such a resource. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I came to this article because I needed it as a reference in a memo on installing forum software on a government website. So get rid of this AfD tag already! :-) Sandstein 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found this article extremely helpful. Please do not delete unless you have something vastly superior to replace it with IMMEDIATELY. The article provides useful external links for further research. Without this article, I would have wasted hours of time & still come up with a comparitively inferior result. Now I can build on this info & use the time the artile saved me to get the answers for my specific questions on the internet.

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.