Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitser (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 delete. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitser (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)

Freeware file archiving tool with no independent mentions beyond a few short reviews. No assertion of notability has been made by the WP:SPA article creator (or anyone else) in eight years. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or rather: Don't delete yet.
Normally, I'd always recommend that this very kind of stub'ish article be merged into an appropriate list-article. But! in this very case, then the appropriate list-article is "Comparison of file archivers", which however is (unlike normal list-articles) not offering an overview of all relevant properties for each item as one entry (one line in a one table). Instead each item is there split into 5 entries (5 lines in 5 tables; one table per property grouping), and that specific list-article-design/layout makes it near impossible to easily grasp the specific overview, as is offered by a specific item page (i.e. "Bitser (software)" being the item here).
Well, I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem. :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - it could be draftified but shouldn't be in mainspace unless it meets one of the inclusion criteria.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Comparison of file archivers.~~ The software doesn't stand out on its own, but it's already described in depth in the comparison article. Newslinger (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 ^Talk 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the software products listed on Comparison of file archivers are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? - You're contradicting yourself: Bitser is actually on that list, which you therefore take to mean that Bitser is entitled to have its own article. But you're voting to delete that very article. ... I think I need an empty glass full of water to go with that. -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing remark from nominator, who can't believe this is still going after 20 days: Some "List of" and "Comparison of" articles tend to become hopeless spam magnets unless without the WP:WTAF hammer to wield against redlinks. I'd worry that if we make this the only exception on Comparison of file archivers we can expect that list to grow into a giant WP:NOTDIR cruft-fest in a hurry. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow: Don't worry, just scream in terror: Have you seen List of breakfast drinks(?)

Q1: Why is Olive oil the first item on the list? Q2: Is "Coffee is a breakfast drink" a WP:FRINGE claim until we cite Sociology in Perspective - Mark Kirby - Google Books? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:53, 22 July 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.