Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of pastebins

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of pastebins

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

none of these websites have a wp article. too much text to dump into the pastebin article. there is no reason for wp to have this table. we ain't a general review site to create tables comparing nn websites. this belongs on some other wiki. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:N. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good list of pastebins for users searching for one, no reason to delete. After all, this is a comparison list. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - this user has made significant contributions to this article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - Indeed, it is everyones job to do so. This is wikipedia, not half-arsepedia.-- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Excellent list of commercially available pastebins. Deletion is not dependent on whether their exists an article on these pages yet. No article does not automatically mean non-notable. Ikip 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Pastebins page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep The AfD nom reason amounts to just not notable, which while false, is also one of the many arguments to avoid. Despite the laundry list of "reasons" stated by Blaxthos above, this AfD nomination is not backed up by any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
The notability guideline does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only helps determine if a specific subject should have its own standalone article. WP:NCC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
This particular article has lots of references and uses two citation methods; inline citations and embedded citations, so Blaxthos's claims of WP:OR are obviously without merit. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses. This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see Category:Computing comparisons for an overview of many of these articles on Wikipedia. I seriously doubt someone would nominate similarly structured articles such as List of neutrino experiments for deletion.
I'll also point out that Blaxthos has shown up here strictly due to his personal conflicts with Eckstasy. (See [1] and [2])
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (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.