Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Python software (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 SNOW or speedy keep, take your pick. Nomination has garnered no support; many !voters are finding arguments in the first AfD compelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Python software[edit]

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

Delete. While organized, this is still an indiscriminate list. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously. This nomination is just a WP:POINTy attempt at revenge by its nominator, who is going through nominating all the articles that I have worked on because of a personal dislike of me. LotLE×talk 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG at the first AFD:
As the items on the list are notable, with WP articles, and the connection with the subject of the list is clear and sourcable, the list is appropriate. The programming language something is written is is major defining characteristic.
Jarkeld (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful list, obviously appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page itself could use some sourcing improvement, but in any event I certainly agree with the DGG (talk · contribs) comment above (as quoted/cited by Jarkeld (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with sourcing comment above, but generally a useful reference list. SpecMode (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, obviously appropriate and encyclopedic list. Also, the nom notion of "indiscriminate" is unexplained. --Cyclopia^talk 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this list discriminate beyond being "Python software" ? JBsupreme (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way is "being Python software" (and notable, perhaps, but to settle this editing is enough) not discriminate enough? --Cyclopia^talk 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm blindly hoping this is a red link: List of Perl software. JBsupreme (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is blue, instead. :) --Cyclopia ^talk 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'm relieved it doesn't exist, my point is that it should not exist. What is the encyclopedic value of indiscriminately listing software by any given high-level programming language? It has been said that this is useful. How, exactly? JBsupreme (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Example: "I have heard of this programming language, Python. However, hmm, I don't know if it's suitable -for example, what notable software has been developed with it?" "Check List of Python software out for an organized list with short descriptions!" --Cyclopia ^talk 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We may not have a list article for Perl software, but we do have Category:Perl software, and similar categories for many other programming languages. (Mind, if they're meant to be exhaustive, as this list apparently is, they're rather laughably incomplete.) —Korath (Talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This overwhelmingly passed AfD a year ago & nominator has not raised any new points as to why this should be deleted now. This is organized in a way a category cannot be & is just as discriminate as a category if it is cleaned up so that all list members have their own wiki articles. --Karnesky (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with more entries: can see no grounds for deletion here. MuffledThud (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2010 (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.