Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of web based file managers

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, mostly per WP:NOTDIR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of web based file managers[edit]

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

A list of external links; "references" are to either sales pages or (for the free entries) download pages. Per WP:LSC, list entries should either have articles or a reasonable expectation of an article; of the two entries that have or have had articles, one has been G11'd and prodded, and the other was created by the software's author and is mostly a feature list, so I doubt very much any such articles are forthcoming. —Korath (Talk) 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Korath (Talk) 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Korath (Talk) 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sales catalog, literally. I support comparisons and lists of products we don't have separate articles about as long as they are sourced to appropriate secondary sources, like round-up reviews. We have none of that here. All references are primary or catalog entries (sourceforge etc.) My view is actually supported by WP:LSC, which is not as restrictive as Korath desribed it: "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles", and "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." But even that lower standard isn't met here. Pcap ping 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No deception was intended; I just didn't think it relevant. This is the sort of list where entries should have articles (which round-up reviews of any length at all would support). "Not warranting independent articles" is usually invoked for lists of subitems of a concrete article—we have plenty of lists of episodes that don't have individual articles, for example, but don't put articleless entries on List of television programs by name. An example in the software domain is List of Microsoft codenames (the bluelinks there are essentially all to [[Springboard]], not [[Windows Springboard]]). "List definitions should be based on reliable sources" is about the membership criteria themselves, not whether individual entries meet them—see Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 2#Removal of long-standing formulation. —Korath (Talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I removed the prices, which indeed reads like sales catalog. Other than that flaw (now fixed), it is a useful comparison of a category of tools. The list may not be complete, and it may be useful to add some additional annotations of exact capabilities of each tool. But it's a bunch of tools, some of which individually warrant an article, and comparing them in one place is encyclopedic. LotLE×talk 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:EL, WP:N and attracts spam because it's all external links.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : cloud computing and such tools are raising. Keep. Yug (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a (free) software user I often come on wikipedia to compare products and check the state of the art in a domain. And that this kind of page I'm looking for. Of course, more data would be welcome, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhana8 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the categorisation of "web based file managers" is not the subject of reliable sources, in the sense that this is neither a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, nor is the subject matter defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without a valid name or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than an open invitation for spam. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first revision of this list was identical to the last of Comparison of web based file managers (afd) except for the omission of maintenance tags, and was posted by the latter article's only significant editor within hours of its deletion. If I'd tagged it as a G4 instead of bringing it here, it would have been speedy-deleted. At minimum, I'm going to inform the participants in the previous afd. —Korath (Talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTDIR item sadly. Not a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Pcap and Korath. The entries in this list do not have their own Wikipedia articles, except for KFM. Regrettably, even that article has no external sources and it looks like it won't survive long. The topic of web-based file managers is not without interest but we can't cover this area with no reliable sources. Otherwise it's just a catalog of the developers' own claims. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 28 January 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.