Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSV application support

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. Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CSV application support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Multiple issues here:

• WP:NOTDIR and fails WP:CSC, thus fails WP:N;
• Violates WP:EL;
• No sources referenced, although this could perhaps be fixed at least partially;
• "Unmaintained" since April 2015 or April 2017, according to maintenance templates;
• May not be important enough to merit its own article. There's Comma-separated values § Application support.

It doesn't look like this article can be salvaged. If everything was resolved, there'd be nothing or almost nothing remaining in the article. Very few articles link to this article. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I Disagree: Just because you personally don't see the point of the article isn't a reason argue for deletion. Regarding a lack of sources: every external link you're objecting to is one of the external sources. If you look at the history of the CSV article you point to, you'll see that this used to be a section in that page but it was moved out into its own page to keep the CSV page focused on its intended topic. Christopher Rath (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding a lack of sources: every external link you're objecting to is one of the external sources. They only seem to claim the mere existence of something, not their subject importance in context of the article with WP:RS. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Also my point of proposal here is WP:TNT, not [I] personally don't see the point of the article. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:FAILN and is an indiscriminate grouping of material. Totally unsourced article (showing since 2006), hanging around apparently mocking a multitude of policies and guidelines. Indiscriminately links, that looks impressive, but does not offer any "support" for notability. A search did not find anything to show anything either. Maybe it should not have been moved. Of course, if it had the same lack of sources while in the other article just maybe it shouldn't have been there either. In 2015 and 2017 issues were raised and a merge request placed. Nothing was dealt with. "Seeing" or "not seeing" a supposed point is not the issue. We have policies and guidelines, as well as broad community consensus, that notability- be established by reliable sources. Just because someone "likes" an article does not mean we should have it either. I can't even see a basis for a stand alone article if it were blown to bits and started again from scratch. What would be the sources? Produce a couple so I can look. Otr500 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remain: The list is not indiscriminate by any English definition of that word. It is, however, a list. Christopher Rath (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Specifically there is nothing showing that THE LIST (rather than simply the items in the list) is notable. FOARP (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom on everything but also as well as WP:NOTHOWTO. This looks more like a programming guide rather than an encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain If deleted all the information should be ported into the Comma-separated values article where it wouldn't fit neatly. Far better, as at present, to use a hat note to annex-out lists from the main text pages. Sources are given in the form of external links – they should be formatted properly but they do exist. Doing that would avoid the WP:EL criticism. The list clearly is not a programming guide, it merely points the reader to libraries and modules. To fall under WP:NOTHOWTO there would need to be explicit code examples showing calls to the libraries. In short, all that needs to be done is to sort out the references, checking that they are still relevant/up to date. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am trying to be open minded but can understand why there has been no references added since 2006. I was sincere in my source request (since I couldn't find anything) for someone to "Produce a couple so I can look". A reply was "Sources are given in the form of external links – they should be formatted properly but they do exist.". It was also offered above "every external link you're objecting to is one of the external sources".

I randomly picked some "external links", not just a link to an article, but a possible reference: Ruby on Rails framework, to try to black link and use as a reference. It is a self-published anonymous (Posted by rafaelfranca) blog that begins "Hi everyone,", noting that Rails 5.2.2 has been released. Links can be followed that lead to another anonymous blog (under "News" posted by dhh). Undeterred I scrolled down and chose xmlsh, an expired domain parked at GoDaddy for purchase. I then clicked on cassava and I arrived at GitHub where I can sign up or sign in to watch, star, or fork a repository (the term used on the link). It also states above "...it merely points the reader to libraries and modules.". I gave it my best shot when apparently proponents just gave comments but there are still notability issues and this list does not follow Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Have a Happy Holiday, Otr500 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 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.