Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of PDF presentation software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dudhhr (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 28 October 2022 (Updating nomination page with notices and new AFDC cat (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Comparison of PDF presentation software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination)/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of power management software suites/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software/etc. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all but one entry appear to have no claimed reason for notability, so there's no way to establish a useful WP:LSC. Lists (and by extension to an extent, comparisons) of mostly non-notable things are generally non-notable unless there's a clear argument that the broader topic is notable, and I can't think of one here. See also my vote at the XMPP comparisons AfD for a general argument against including these styles of comparison at all: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the very construction of the page constitutes WP:SYNTH, but these articles have enough prevalence on the wiki that I feel like a broader discussion is merited, so I'm voting here on the more stringent criteria of notability that this seems to fail. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 18:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Lists. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]