Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs (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 delete all. ignoring the single-purpose accounts with no policy based reasoning, consensus is quite clear. Secret ^account 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of WAMPs

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WAMP is encyclopedic and notable. IMHO, listing the various commercial WAMP offering falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. No enyclopedic content is added through this list, or through the related articles. Accordingly they should go.

Reasons to keep some or all would be if any can demonstrate encyclopedically distinctive aspects to a particular distro, such that they distinguish it from the others. Merely listing version numbers though is not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related members of this list:

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really (Category:Software comparisons), but this simply means we should be discussing the deletion of this entire category (or pointing to discussions/policies on this from the past), as this article is representative of much wider type of a potential problem. That said, for the record, I do think that such comparisons are useful, and as encyclopedic as most lists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think comparisons can be useful, provided that we make genuine comparisons and discuss technical aspects. Mere lists though, not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The 'Comparison' doesn't compare very much - do to the nature of WAMPs differences are minor, just slightly different versions of the same open source packages - it really is more of a list. The specific members mentioned all lack reliable third party sources and should be deleted per WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just searched for different WAMP setups and the wiki article is exactly what I wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.40.125 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — 82.5.40.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I agree with previous comment85.225.228.123 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — 85.225.228.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Agree with Andy Dingley, comparisons are useful. Wikipedia has an opportunity to be a canonical resource for software comparisons, as different groups want them. When I have to research software, I always look at Wikipedia and generally find 2-4 resources I had not found through search engines. The trick is for Wikipedia to set an appropriate level of detail required for these comparisons: enough to not be a list but not so much detail the community is overwhelmed providing the minimum useful detail (which, for me, is a product name, license type, software language). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSlavin (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I used to help maintain this list, and at one point cleaned it up entirely of dead and abandoned WAMPs (which made up the majority of the list). Sometime after, several editors determined that only WAMPs with wiki-pages could be included, at which point this list became useless and disingenuous.

This list does not represent the current WAMP ecosystem at all. It only shows a minor sub-set of some older WAMPs that have wiki-pages (and for some reason Uniform Server twice). 4 active + 3 dead WAMPs, total.
The various WAMPs are already cataloged via Wikipedia's Category:WAMP, or can be found with the keyword through the search box.
The comparisons in this list are rather weak and minor. This type of thing belongs outside of Wikipedia, perhaps on a Talk page or someone's website.
There is no sound argument against the fact that this list is not encyclopedic, or notable, or comprehensive at all. It just shows a small number of 3rd-party packages/distributions of Apache, PHP, and MySQL. Most of these distributions are not much more than zips or install-wrappers around the open-source software, under a custom folder structure and configuration. And most of these distributions are identical to the other except for some minor version difference or some minor configuration difference... If you were to clean this list of the mentioned distributions (that are virtually clones of each other), it would have 1 or maybe 2 rows in it.

Vorlion (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a technical manual. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2013 (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.