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. The current state of the article is irrelevant when it comes to deletion, because AfD is not cleanup, and so is the fact that other similar articles exist, which leaves the arguments surrounding WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE and I find that the keep !voters' arguments have policy on their side. Salvio ^giuliano 08:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply

Comparison of JavaScript charting libraries (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)

Was originally PROD'd with a reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination). Tech cruft. WP:NOTDIR. WP:NOTGUIDE. UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
• Delete I am going to quote verbatim from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination): This article suffers the same problems as the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination) - it's a mass of often-outdated technical detail with too little context. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply

  @Pppery: It sounds like the article needs maintenance, which generally isn't a good reason for deletion. What outdated text in the article were you referring to, exactly? Perhaps it can be updated.    — The Transhumanist   09:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply

• Delete per nom and others. Wikipedia isn't a tech guide nor a product comparator. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)reply

  Tech product comparisons are a well-established part of Wikipedia, and don't constitute it being a "tech guide". See this search for articles starting with "Comparison of" and notice the preponderance of tech.    — The Transhumanist   06:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply

  It certainly does. In this case, it is an entire class of articles, supporting the position that this type of article is an allowed and accepted part of Wikipedia. Arguing to delete this comparison article because it is a comparison article is like nominating a list for deletion because it is a list, or nominating an article for deletion because it is an article. The Transhumanist   08:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply

• Keep. This is not a niche list, like the excel-addon list mentioned above. Several 18 of the libraries are notable enough to have their own articles. Please give me a day to link to more existing articles. Done. Three other articles are linking to this page. A few libraries were outdated but are now deleted.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)reply

  @Tomastvivlaren: See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. It has a lot of tips on how to rescue an article (from deletion), and reasons why a rescuable article shouldn't be nominated for deletion. The key question here is: Is the article rescuable?    — The Transhumanist   09:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply

• Keep as this could easily be renamed to List of JavaScript charting libraries, and lists are certainly something that can be included in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)reply

  This is a straw man. None of us have any objection to the concept of lists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)reply

• Keep - Since when does name calling and flinging unrelated shortcuts constitute a deletion nomination? Calling it cruft is rhetoric. See WP:ITSCRUFT, which is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Obviously, the nominator sees no value in the article, but, just because he may never have a need to refer to the information in this meticulously crafted table doesn't mean that others won't. This is an informative list the context of which is very clearly stated in the page's title. In fact, it is being used—in a class to teach students (see the article's talk page)—this is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be: a learning resource. The shortcuts in the nomination are nothing more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE: a careful read of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE reveals that this list does not violate those policies, which makes one wonder why they were cited in the first place. What the heck is going on here?    — The Transhumanist   05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) — Note: The alleged canvasser (Tomastvivlaren) has been notified, and provided with a link to the canvassing policy.    — The Transhumanist   09:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
• Keep. As others mentioned above me, this is a very legitimate list. It needs to be broken vertically in two, per excessive width. Also rename to List of JavaScript charting libraries. Prodding should NEVER be used for controversial deletions! gidonb (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply

  When I proposed this for deletion back in October I saw it as no more likely to be controversial than the discussion it linked as precedent. Evidently I was wrong about that, but you can't accuse me of misusing the PROD process based on months of hindsight. I still don't understand how this is any better than the article deleted at that discussion, but probably never will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply

I pointed out an error in judgment and you just confirmed it was and it was you. Don't know what you want from me. PLEASE be more careful next time! gidonb (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply

• Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL guideline. The OR in the article needs to be removed along with nn entries.  // Timothy :: talk  05:16, 4 April 2023 (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.