Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of file sharing 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of file sharing software

Listcruft that performs no function that the category Category:File sharing programs doesn't already perform better. Very little editing history [1] IslaySolomon 01:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redirect to the category. I found all of these having blue links. Lists have red links, categories don't..but they're all blue, so thus no advantage. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is plenty. Kafziel 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess that the user that started this article (Nadyes Talk Contribs) intended to make a Comparison of file sharing programs article, but he never finished his idea. However we already have a Comparison of file sharing applications article. Razvan Socol 07:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move to WP:BJAODN as example of redundant article. --TheM62Manchester 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. - Patman2648 10:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category needs to be applied consistently - a list would be more useful if it was sorted by protocol, architecture etc. This "blind list" conveys no information, and a well used category needs no further maintainence. Ace of Risk 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the philosophy that lists can always be replaced by categories ignores how wikilinking works - since at least one real article links to the list, it's worth keeping. WilyD 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that link add something more to the LimeWire article than inclusion in the file sharing software category provides? -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not even a good wikilink, just an entry (the only entry) in the "see also" section. Kafziel 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that no one would "Go" directly to this page and the category would come up in search results, so a redirect is not neccessary. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category is fine, and better organized. Reywas92 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-referential and excessive. The category is better. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cat is sufficient. The wikilink does not justify it; one can link to categories as well, if necessary. Deco 21:45, 10 August 2006 (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.