Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of photo gallery software

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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo gallery software

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic to me - Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Quite which programs get included seems entirely arbitrary. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is poorly done at present - only the programs that have WP articles get included in these lists (other may be removed) so selection isn't arbitrary. There's no solid rationale here for deletion as these types of articles are standard - see Category:Software comparisons. SD0001 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a software guide. It's very worrying that software seems to be added at random creating a bias. » Shadowowl | talk 18:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion are met. Almost all software listed is notable enough for a Wikipedia article and thus a comparison of such software is also inherently notable. Lists and comparisons such as this are standard practice on Wikipedia and this fails to meet any specific criterion for deletion. The AfD nomination does not even mention which criterion for deletion is being used. Alleged lack of quality in an article just means the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Deletion on Wikipedia requires meeting one of the criteria for deletion and I do not see any which are met and nobody is citing any of them either. Yetisyny (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles which can be improved is not a criteria for deletion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I started out with a weak keep. I've removed the non-notable examples that make it a problem for WP:NOT. To my mind that made it a comparison of notable software within a particular category, which is pretty common. The problem is that the software category it's based on is not one we have an article on (photo gallery software) and there aren't as many sources comparing that kind of software as there typically are for other such lists... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to Comparison of photo gallery publishing software, which is a more precise description of the list quoted from the lead sentence that distinguishes "photo gallery software" from "image organizer". As photo gallery publishing software is a distinct software category with multiple notable entries, this comparison would qualify as a information list under WP:LISTPURP, which is referenced in WP:LISTN. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. analogous to many similararticles, with adequate sources and appropriately selective coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 16 September 2018 (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.