Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of enterprise search software (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. What I hope is learned here is that if an editor claims X is "the standard practice" or "long-standing consensus is" X, it would be more persuasive with a link to poicy which affirms thst these claims are indeed true. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of enterprise search software

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Comparison of enterprise search software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass of poorly-sourced tech cruft. Has the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EchidnaLives: See that statement, "Only appeals to very niche audiences". Don't repeat that on Wikipedia anywhere please. Saying something like that is anti-Wikipedia. People on WP, put in articles so they can address specific or all audiences, never mind how big or small they are, who are not served and this is one of the core purposes of Wikipedia. That is the point of WP. Its where the WMF spend most of their money. I cannot stress enough how mad it sounds when you say it. It makes no sense. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep,
Sorry, I'm new to deletion discussions and not great at making very good arguments. However, I still believe it's against WP:NOTGUIDE. echidnaLives - talk - edits 21:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EchidnaLives: Please don't apologize. I'm really glad you pinged me and its nice to meet you!! Its not a manual. Its the typical standard consensus based approach of having having a series of properties to describe something in this instance, software. But it could just as well be a insect, a disease, a lake, a monument, a protein. You see the pattern everywhere on Wikipedia. That is not same as a manual, which is a set of descriptive or procedural steps to achieve a desired outcome. They are fundamentally different. You can say its guides you to choose a particular type of software, but there is instance in WP, where the same decision process is made by multiple people everday and not in software. That is nature of the encyclopeadia. That is reason its written that, its conensus based, like any other feature of x. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep It's nice to meet you too! As this is something I am still trying to understand, I will change my vote to Neutral, and continue to read and learn about this topic. Thanks a lot for explaining it further, I really appreciate it! echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think there are a lot of issues here. I don't think the main issue is that it's "too niche" (though there needs to be some form of WP:LSC on the page, like maybe removing non-notable software entries; this can be fixed and is not a reason to delete on its own it though). I do think WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE apply here, but I'm also not a huge fan of using WP:NOT to exclude anything-and-everything, and when considering those guidelines explicitly, I think it's worth asking the general question of whether a page fits into Wikipedia in a way that would make it useful. The reason not to include guides and directories is to keep things to sourceable, clear information, presented in a neutral way, and kept accurate, complete, and free from errors. These are things that are impossible to achieve on this page. It's filled with WP:OR (very little of the information is or even can be cited), WP:SYNTH (in the selection of the things to include and compare on), entirely lacking in completeness—it has more question marks (1596) on it than it does "Yes" (by a margin of ~500) or "No" (by a margin of ~1500)—and since specific capabilities of software are often changing as it's actively developed and updated, very likely to be out of date (especially since sources are unavailable). I can't imagine a reader thinking this is useful content for them—not because it's niche, but because if I needed to compare these things, this wouldn't be useful content for me. I think Consumer Reports-like comparisons can be useful when done well—but they're not encyclopedic, and as a result, Wikipedia isn't well equipped to do the maintenance and original research necessary to make them so. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, filled with nothing but original research, fails GNG, just like other such articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. More computer software tech cruft, fails WP:NOTGUIDE and reliability of sources are questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Applying WP:NOTGUIDE means than 1000's of comparison articles which is a large section of community relies on a daily basis, is in jeopardy. It simply does not apply in this situation, because each entry is not a manual. Essentially the argument endangers all sorts WP:NGEO feature article that use a similar approach listing properties for particular object. Its not manual like in any manner. I took a random sample of 10 of the entries, and every single one of them is still under active development. Per long-standing Wikipedia consensus, software which is still under development has an article. The article is absolutly notable. User:Dylnuge is essentially is advocating for cleanup through Afd, which is against consensus. The article is old, and needs updated, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Questional reliablity of sources is also nonsense. The article needs updated not deleted. Lastly, the argument that somehow that the article is too niche for Wikipedia, directly contradicts WP:5P. Somehow that niche audience doesn't need that information to be preserved by Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 00:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where you get that anything I said merits a WP:DINC response. That's about using deletion as a process to remake the page—I am not arguing for that; I do not believe this page meets notability. My deletion argument is that this topic 1) fails to set an appropriate notability criteria for lists (and can't, by design) and 2) consists almost exclusively of WP:OR (and must, by design). I do also think the general set of pages are unlikely to be useful to anyone, and have laid out why, but that is not my policy argument. You're zeroing in on the word "niche," which while used, is no one's policy argument. I'd also ask for a link to any discussion establishing long-standing Wikipedia consensus, though it wouldn't invalidate anything anyone has said here. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:33, 5 November 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_enterprise_search_software_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1120113415"