Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of API simulation tools

Comparison of API simulation tools

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Comparison of API simulation tools (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)

This list article contains entirely original research with an unclear or arbitrary inclusion criteria. The article has a long history of included external links to different software providers, with few sources that could be considered reliable. Long history of promotional and possible SEO jacking on this article. Unclear inclusion material makes it difficult to update/improve. Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, . Requires regular cleanup to remove WP:SOAP and promotional materials by SPA accounts.

Declined Prod by single edit IP user. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the problems you document in this article. Could you explain where do you see these problems in the article? There is no original research as references are provided or can be made available. There is no advertising. This is not a directory but a comparison. And this is not a mirror or a repository of links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.203.95 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this because Wikipedia articles are not guides, or a repository of indiscriminate information collected by original research without reliable sources. This page is an example of both of these things. The collection of external links on this page, that are not independent of the subjects (see WP:NOTLINK), cannot be used to verify the claims made within. A main pillar of this encyclopedia is that articles must be verifiable and do not contain independent research.

There is a goal to edit the article to improvement, but because of the above, and the lack of clear inclusion criteria as to what tools make sense to have in this comparison, in my view it does not appear that it be edited to significance.

Nayyn (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As inherently against WP:NOTDIR. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]