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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of screen capture software[edit]

List of screen capture software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a product guide, nor the yellow pages. Both pages suffer from lack of sourcing, tend to attract excessive external links, and are basically promotion for a variety of brands, many of which are not particularly notable. >Radiant< 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of screen recording software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both, though I'll probably get accused again of being partial in a revert war over external links in pages that I haven't even edited. Such lists might be borderline useful, if there were more bluelinks, which in this case there are not. These pages aren't encyclopedic articles themselves, nor are they particularly related to any other articles, they are mere collections, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies. Femto 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these thriving link farms of non-notable software. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links and it is not meant to be used as a vehicle for advertising or promotion. I've tried and failed in cleaning up the external links in this list. A troublesome main actor in this dispute has stated: "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." [1] I then attempted negotiating a compromise solution that could resolve this dispute to which the response was "No deals with you." Deletion was not my preferred path but at this point in time I feel it is the best and only solution. (Requestion 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The guideline WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming says "adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Both of these software lists serve no other purpose than to be vessels for link spam. (Requestion 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • It should be mentioned that the Village Pump (policy) has commented on this particular dispute. See [2] for reference. The pump archive will be deleted in two weeks so here is a brief summary: User:Urod took the "deletions of external links" dispute to the pump, several policy makers commented that WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIR are the relevant guidelines, Urod and I were both scolded, and the closing comment was "As far as I see it, this policy issue is resolved; the feud is to be taken elsewhere." (Requestion 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Do Not Delete In response to the advertisement allegations: This article is not complete (see ToDo List), but is a work in progress on a dynamic subject that is difficult to define and categorize (help is welcome). This list of screen recording software should not be misinterpreted as an advertisement due to pricing, prices are included because cost is significant when evaluating software. They were removed once before from another page, and put back because some found them useful... see the Screencast Discussion page. Furthermore; it took quite a bit of time & energy to research & compile the pricing data and software links. When looking at other Comparison pages, prices apparently can be included and are helpful when comparing features and making evaluation decisions... Price data is prevalent in many other 'Comparison' articles like Comparison of video editing software & Comparison of instant messaging clients. Hopefully a 'Comparison of Screen Recording Software' article can be written soon that obsoletes some of the (price) information on this 'List' page. Please advise or help write a 'Comparison of Screen Recording Software' article (I'm not great with tables), but don't delete this work based on some editor in chief, soup-nazi mentality. Please remove the Marked for Deletion banner, 'Articles that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion' Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If the article is deleted, I will find it hard to contribute my time & research to wikipedia in the future. Awildman 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) - Duplicate vote: User:Awildman has cast a second vote below. (Requestion 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)) My mistake, it was a comment. (Requestion 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep both as per Awildman --Urod 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - Duplicate vote: Urod (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote below. Femto 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_screen_recording_software#Pricing_Information

• Delete, a list where everything of a kind is listed is not very encyclopedic when the only inclusion criteria is being. Second, a list of this type becomes unmaintainable after a short period of time Alf^Photoman 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm ^T _C 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful and notable information, which could not be replaced with a category because most of the software is redlinked and will never be notable enough for individual articles. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, this is interesting. You say that the information is notable, yet it will never have articles because it's not notable. That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Also, see WP:USEFUL. >Radiant< 10:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, come on. Merging minor articles into a list is a long standing action. List of Star Trek races for one where most races are deemed not notable enough to have their own articles. I fail to see how this article is any different in these terms and I really fail to see how it's an oxymoron. Cburnett 14:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment List of Star Trek races are an aspect of fiction in a notable work of fiction; they have their own guidelines. This isn't comparable. I'm not sure how you can keep an article with eternal redlinks without having it become a linkfarm. ColourBurst 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the List of Star Trek races is not comparable to these two Lists of Software. The Star Trek lists have content, are informative, and they lack any promotional external links. These two lists up for AfD are different; they have no content and their sole purpose is to be promotional. I've found that keeping external links out of software lists requires a lot of diligence. The big problem here is that one user in particular has taken an oath to be disruptive when they said "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." Unfortunately a happy medium is not possible when dealing with such individuals. (Requestion 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
          • I wrote this, but I also wrote that I am going to respect any decision of Arbitration Commitee (besides, I am neutral about removing prices). --Urod 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment for another example, think of all the minor relatives of celebrities. Such people are rarely notable enough for their own articles, but they can be mentioned on the celebrity's article. There's a big leap between "item is notable enough for its own article" and "item is notable enough to be mentioned briefly in an article along with a bunch of other stuff that also doesn't deserve individual articles". Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Mermaid from the Baltic Sea. Mathmo ^Talk 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mermaid from the Baltic Sea --Urod 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provided prices are removed completely. If this were cleaned up (cleaning up is not a valid reason to delete) and prices removed then this is no more of a product guide than list of operating systems. It is also not a yellow pages (I don't see any contact information). Cburnett 14:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I totally agree. Prices must be removed. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are the yellow pages and the contact information is the external links. You might not see the contact information (external links) in the current versions of both pages but that's because I've been fighting a losing battle to keep them clean. Take a look at these diffs [3] and [4] as examples of what both pages recently looked like and what they will look like in the future if this AfD is rejected. In the discussion about the edit war a particularly defiant user has said "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." and just above in this AfD discussion the same user basically vowed to continue this course of action until they are stopped by an arbitration committee. (Requestion 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Are you trying to say that you want to delete this article merely because you are tired of fighting vandalism? Try page protection or use the [[Spam blacklist. Vandalism issues aren't a reason for AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the proper reasons to delete an article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not the person that put this link farm up for deletion but I do believe it should be deleted because of WP:NOT violations. This software list has a whole lot of other problems too. It contains no content, it has no value, and unfortunately it is a magnet for spammers. Just yesterday a sock puppeting spammer removed the AfD notice from both of these lists, got rather uncivil, and ran amok on Wikipedia randomly reverting edits (see User_talk:LinksWant2BeFree and Special:Contributions/LinksWant2BeFree for reference). (Requestion 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete as linkfarm directory per nom. Otto4711 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Close and RFC?: It seems that the articles are a "linkfarm" due to a dispute between User:Urod and User:Requestion. Based on the comments at Talk:List of screen capture software, the articles could be taken to WP:RFC#Request comment on articles. As far as I can tell, User:Urod's desire to keep the links in the articles is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines (specifically WP:NOT#REPOSITORY) and I am fairly confident that an RFC will decide that the links are not to be included (except a few relevant ones in "External links" sections). Perhaps the articles should be relisted for deletion after the external links issue has been settled and the articles given a chance for improvement? -- Black Falcon 07:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Write new article. Yeah... Where is the article defining what screen recording/capture is ? (Forgive me if I missed the link).Although obvious to many computer users ... to the novice the distinctions can be confusing. These links could then be incorporated into that definition page ? DJbarney

• Screen_recording redirects to Screencast and many see it as an integral part of the Podcasting Project. Also if anyone cared they'd review the Talk:Screencast pages for some history as to how this List came about. I don't see how this List can be deleted, when Lists of Software are becoming a predominate category in WP. Many are not as well developed as this one. We simply need guidance & templates as to how to create these Lists and Comparison pages properly (no one wants to see them become link-spam & propaganda). It would be a shame to delete them all! Being an IT & trying to keep track of software tools & development is one of the main reasons I use WP... I find these Lists and Comparison pages most useful. As time allows, I would prefer to continue to work on this & add stubs to wiki articles describing some of the significant software like FFMPEG and Istanbul_software, which doesn't have a page yet. I don't think it is a black & white issue (delete or keep), the Lists exist and are a necessary part of the process to create more in depth articles. There is a methodology to creating an article on a category of software like Screencasting. This is how it is evolving:
• Define, List features and what the product is used for. Video editing software
• Describe the process for creating a product, provide access to HOWTOs & Examples. Video editing software
• List tools for creating a product. List_of_video_editing_software
• Compare the tools. Comparison_of_video_editing_software

It was never the intention of this article to create a 'link-farm', rather a source of reference for organizing & defining what is Screen Recording software (similar to Video editing software) & how it can be used to create computer based Tutorials, Screencasts, Netcasts, Podcasts, CBTs... (rather hot topics), which are evolving rapidly. Unfortunately sites like tucows and freshmeat don't have collaborative wikis or the ability to categorize items the way some of the software lists have evolved on WP. So is there a recommended way to create a List of software with references and 'blue' links, short of creating a WP entry for each item? I'm still learning & some 'good' examples would help. Awildman 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In Urod's preferred form, it's an unencyclopedic link farm, in Requestion's preferred form, a sea of red. The link farm is the more useful form, but WP is not the appropriate place for it. —David Eppstein 08:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both as per above. 83.67.217.254 12:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect this IP address is a wireless hotspot. It appears that this address was/is autoblocked for vandalism (see User_talk:83.67.217.254). It also appears that this user was brought here by canvassing (see diff [5]) via the non-involved List of video editing software article page. The guideline WP:CANVAS seems to prohibit this sort of thing. (Requestion 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep both and suggest for cleanup. List of bittorrent clients seems to be appropriate for this encyclopedia. Again, as cited above, users looking for how such software compare with each other would benefit most from a dynamic Wiki since such software evolve rapidly. Simfish 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. As Awildman states, I do believe such lists are useful to gather more information regarding different subjects. Prices could (and should?) be removed, but since it's a list of software I would suggest linking to the home pages. (On a sidenote, I've just added links to the freeware version of these programs, since I naturally thought they should be there. After reading this discussion I'm not sure I did the right thing. But I, for one, would like these links to be there) Holroy 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has less than 50 edits (Special:Contributions/Holroy). In fact, before adding 11 external links to List of screen recording software (see [6] and [7]), this user had been sleeping since December 2004. What are the odds of that? Something crazy is going on here. I suspect this sleeper to be User talk:84.234.137.124, User talk:85.165.69.221, and User talk:GerdLivJalla who are all from Norway. (Requestion 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • The odds could be low, but it exists, and I'm the living and awaken proof of it. I haven't been extremely active on w: but I've been hanging about for some years, reading and browsing. I'm indeed User talk:84.234.137.124, but not the other ones. Holroy 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A different suggestion which occured to be earlier today: Would it be possible/feasible/desirable to extend the list pages, so that in addition to having good lists like List of countries, one could add 'Links to screen recording software'? And then establish rules for how to populate those kind of link-lists (i.e. no prices, no advertising, ...)? Cause I still think it would be nice to have those lists of links, albeit I will respect the outcome of a discussion such as this one. Holroy 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately a link farm is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Holroy still has less than 40 edits, but number of opinions really isn't that important since WP:Deletion_policy says the "deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not". (Requestion 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete both per WP:WWIN and nom. --Pjacobi 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. I find this very useful, and this kind of content is why I come to wikipedia.AThomas203 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC) AThomas203[reply]
  • Note that Special:Contributions/AThomas203 only has 35 edits including this one. (Requestion 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • I don't think this is a case of a single-purpose account, especially given that all previous edits are not AFD related and on completely different subjects. I'd say User:AThomas203 is just a new-ish user and his contribution to the discussion is a valid one. -- Black Falcon 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that AThomas203 doesn't seem like a special purpose account but a lot of unusual stuff has been swirling around this AfD. People get really angry when their external links are deleted so I am skeptical. For example User:LinksWant2BeFree isn't dormant and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sock or two in here. (Requestion 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete both as obvious spambait articles not really suitable for WP. --BozMo talk 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both since "WP is not a repository of links" (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY), "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists"(WP:NOT#DIR) and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOT#IINFO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucard (Dr.) (talk • contribs) 14:50, March 8, 2007
• Delete both. Essentially just a couple of directory listings. Being spambait is just the icing on that particular cake. --Calton | Talk 17:31, 8 March 2007 (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.