Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of network monitoring systems (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of network monitoring systems

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

Original research by SYNTHESIS. fails WP:NOT Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Spartaz, could you be a little more specific on the WP:SYNTHESIS problem? I usually associate that with an editor drawing conclusions that are not present in the cited WP:RS. This article at first glance looks to be just a large collection of tabulated facts. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the comparison table is original research, There are no sources comparing the data in this way. Essentially this is new information as it cannot be found in this format anywhere else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by that logic, all wikipedia articles should be deleted, as they combine information that can not be found in that format anywhere... --Richlv (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: Thanks, I take your point. What you're looking for then is a WP:RS that does make this kind of comparison, yes? I'll see what I can dig up. @Richlv: By the principle of charity I don't think that was the argument Spartaz was making. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick search turned up a Computer Weekly article "Network monitoring – Essential Guide" (2009) and a TechRepublic article "Five free network monitoring tools" (2012). That establishes feature comparisons of this class of software isn't something original to us. Was that what you were looking for? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As one editor said in the previous AfD, "primary sources are still reliable for much of this content, and such documents can be both exceedingly tedious to put together and extremely useful." Articles of this type are essentially feature comparisons. IMO primary sources are acceptable for information like features. Whether a product has a feature or not is just a fact -- no analysis, nothing controversial or likely to be challenged. Also IMO the article isn't SYNTH because facts are not being put together to draw conclusions. It's just a list of facts that saves the reader the trouble of going out to gather them one by one, to make a table that would look like this article. So my opinion is just the same -- tedious to create, but very useful. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The nom raises a valid point that not all comparison articles need be notable, but as these particular kinds of comparisons exist in reliable sources I don't see that as a problem here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2014 (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.