Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of ecommerce solutions

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. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ecommerce solutions

Definitely unencyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a directory of software). In addition, this article is a spam magnet almost by definition-- the vast majority of edits are additions of linkspam and reverts of same. I don't think this can be salvaged. — Coren ^(talk) 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Weak Delete I'm really not sure about these comparisons. It seems to me like they'd be a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but stuff like Comparison of Internet forum software (PHP) exists. Corpx 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; yeah, I know. But WP:WAX. There is also the very obvious problem of neutrality and original research; even if everything is verifiable, who chooses the comparison criteria? Any why those? Those lists are a maintenance nightmare as well. — Coren ^(talk) 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other list also falls under "WP is not a (software) directory" Corpx 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you guys? You keep repeating that wikipedia is not a software directory. In the mean time you promote several software products: Take a look at the Shopping cart software section; there is oscommerce, Zen Cart, ViArt Shop and several other articles under Shopping cart software. It seems like some editors have special interest in promoting just these products.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.90.148 (talk • contribs) — 66.176.90.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fix, if possible, else delete Nothing in there is sourced except for, indirectly, the few products we have articles for. The rest are just spamming it up. But without those the list wouldn't be at all comprehensive or informative. Also I reckon the sort of websites dedicated to comparing these products can do a better job of it than Wikipedia can. They have workable demos and stuff. --Anakin ^{(contribs, complaints)} 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything. Delete the blatant advertisement of osCommerce, Zen Cart, and ViArt Shop from Shopping cart software. Why listing them when they are not even the most notable e-commerce shopping carts available today? - Where are monstercommerce, x-cart, fortune3, volusion and the truly notables?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.246.41.62 (talk • contribs) — 74.246.41.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I don't see how making a comparison list of features of products inherently violates WP:NOT. Actually, the fourth point in the directory section quite clearly implies that they don't. If you're concerned about spam, delete all the entries with no articles. If you're concerned with sources, hit it with a {{sources}} tag. And per the anon above me, if you think it's incomplete, you can always edit things in. Someguy1221 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article being difficult to maintain is not an argument for deletion. These lists are useful, not to mention we have a vast number of them:
Keep These types of articles are great you just have to police those trying to advertise their products[1]. the wub "?!" 10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being WP:USEFUL shouldnt be a reason to keep either :) Corpx 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – software list and comparsion articles are typically a spam and conflict of interest magnet. I've been watching this article for some time, and most edits seem to revolve around insertions by editors who have a very narrow interest in promoting a particular product. There is no apparent attempt at verification or a standard of notability. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:46, 2 August 2007 (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.