Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft software applications

List of Microsoft software applications

List of Microsoft software applications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Totally redundant to Category:Microsoft software. The category is a much easier tool to index Microsoft applications, without the extra hassle of manually synching the articles and the list. soum ^talk 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't contain any information that the category doesn't already provide, I do not see the purpose of this article. ~ mazca ^talk 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the category giving types of software on one page; only the publisher`; this is one of the main problems with categories, and why we have lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lists and categories are not the same things; this list contains redlinks to likely notable packages. Redundancy is not a ground to delete indexing and reference pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Supremely notable software publisher, and lists are not the same as categories. Might be more useful as a sortable table, however. — brighterorange (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, notability is not questioned. Usability and usefulness are. --soum ^talk 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information is provided here not available in the category; its hardly redundant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per WP:CLN. Lists and categories are not to be considered in conflict; rather, they should each be used to improve the other. Lists can contain elements that make it much more useful to human readers than their accompanying categories. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, of course they are. But the problem is this list does not do that. The organization structure is poor. Lots of redundancies, barely any logical navigational elements, no extra information that cannot be in categories. If lists were like List of Microsoft Windows components, they certainly cannot be replaced by categories. But in this case, the organization is better in the cetgories. In fact, even the navigational templates Template:Microsoft/doc are better organized. --soum ^talk 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]