Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable applications

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 of the debate was keep. – Will (^E_@) T 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well documented list, long introduction and annotations. I can't see anything wrong here. -- JJay 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only the definition and external links section. And delete the rest. Jrinaldi 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The individual items listed are typically notable enough (which seems a reasonable requirement for inclusion), and this is useful information. Some of the same effect could be obtained by a Category:Portable applications, but not the grouping, and this also leaves the possibility of adding further annotations to the list entries. WP:NOT mentions "Mere collections of internal links, except for ... structured lists". I'd say this is a structured list; see also Wikipedia:List guideline. Lambiam^Talk 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep everything! It is a great list and I really appriciate the resource. No reason that I can find to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.49.30.154 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm using NOT too, but that Wikipedia is not paper. This is pretty useful, and I hate lists. T K E 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least it's a useful list. Fishhead64 06:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while WP:NOT is generally useful I think we need to go on the spirit here. This is useful and belongs in a encyclopedia of this sort. SorryGuy 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this list is useful enough. Sheehan (Talk) 07:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep I think this is an awesome resource that should be nurtured, not blasted to hell. --Mboverload 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But consider donating the list portion of the page to a site that is better suited for it - for example http://www.portablefreeware.com/. I think these is still a need to capture information about portable app's; particularly with the recent activity around the U3 specification etc.
• Weak keep, there's more to it than just external links, but the listings which are only external links should either be deleted or beefed up. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I appreciate the position that Wikipedia should not be a link repository, but in some cases (such as this) there are no reliable, up-to-date alternatives elsewhere on the Net that are as comprehensive. If there is room in Wikipedia for obscure comic book characters, then there should be room for a useful resource like this. I'd wager there are more people who need to get Firefox running off a USB drive than those who need to find out the name of all the Star Trek Voyager episodes. --cdjaco 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between lists of internal links versus lists of external links. AlistairMcMillan 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken :), but given the utility of this list and the lack of alternatives on the Net I do not wish to change my vote. --cdjaco 17:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - You guys who have sys-admin status on wikipedia are a bunch of asses. Go get a job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.67.127 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Very useful and relevant to people who actually want to access Wikipedia for information instead of just trying to delete articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.244.78 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• very strong keep, with all the stupid lists (IMHO) here on wikipedia, this is certainly one of the more useful for the general populace. Roodog2k 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Hmmm... that came out wrong.... I just think that this is a universally useful lists, unlike many, many, many other lists. Roodog2k 21:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is extremely useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.4.203 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I use this list constantly. It is an amazing list, and hours of hard time have gone towards it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.187.35.222 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep I love this list, and found it to be a wonderfully useful resource when I need to find portable versions. It makes an excellent starting point for anyone searching for them. It might be nice as a category, but first a lot of work would need to be done to the individual pages that are linked to in order to make that work. Until that amount of work can be done and articles can be created for everything here that does not already have an article, then this page must stay in my opinion. It was even cool enough apparently for it to make the front page of Digg.comAyavaron 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-enjoy the list. Very useful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.250.106 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Indefinite Keep - This is one of the many reasons that I go to wikipedia for over other places for portable applications. Not everyone can find these sites as reliable or simply descriptive as the entries here. Yes Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a depository of links but try saying that to every other wiki page here that has those properties. SignalMan17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links... AlistairMcMillan 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• With a tiny amount of work, the definition section would be a decent stub. I'm not quite Bold enough to do it while it's still being debated on this page.
• Weak Delete per WP:NOT a repository of links. It is a useful resource, but far better suited to another site. It is more appropriate on Wikipedia as a category --Hyperbole 04:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Useful, but does not comply with WP:NOT policy, which states that link pages are not allowed. I agree with moving the information to another site, and suggest providing a link out from the "Flash Drive" page to the final destination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.226.32.16 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Week delete Against the rules BUT a useful set of links. Stevelam01 15:07, 17 April 2006 (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.