Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Visual Studio Add-ins
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Jerry in topic Summary
Closing administrator's remarks
editIf you choose to add comments to this page, please do so in a separate section below. Do not break-up my comments here.
Raw count analysis
edit- Keep
- The Transhumanist
- Iamunknown
- Rhymed/24.18.202.245
- Delete
- Hu12 <nominator>
- Pavel Vozenilek
- Soumyasch
- Non-participatory
- SineBot - just doing that sinebot thing
- Ultraexactzz - delsort
Rough consensus rationale
editDelete arguments
editnone
Discounted delete arguments
edit- Article fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
- THis policy has 4 tenets, none of which apply to this AfD. The policy itself says to refer to Wikipedia:Lists#List naming and list contents instead.
- Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
- THis policy has 5 tenets, none of which apply to this AfD.
- Article is WP:SPAM.
- This guideline defines spam as solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual, which does not apply here.
- has reached an unsalvage-able state
- The edit button has been verified to still work on this article
- Not very informative
- Wikipedia:Lists says: Information The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
- hard to maintain due to volatility of the topic.
- we have millions of editors available to help with that
Keep arguments
edit- Flawed deletion rationale of nominator
- notability and spam links can be managed by editors
- useful navigation tool
- several sources available/ work in progress
- of interest to readers, provides additional context
- list of topics that are related in a significant way
Discounted keep arguments
edit- The world needs this list; information is hard to find elsewhere
Summary
editAlthough the !vote appears to be split, there were no valid delete arguments made in this flawed nomination, or in the delete !votes that were made. The keep arguments were backed solidly by policy and precedent. Ergo: Keep. JERRY talk contribs 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)