Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of network management systems

:{{la|List of network management systems}} ([{{fullurl:List of network management systems|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of network management systems}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The problem here is dangerously close to CSD G11, but not so obvious as to warrant tagging it as such, so I've nominated for AfD instead. Network management system is a very broad term, enough so that most of the entries on this list are not network management tools, per se. Through marketing, companies have stretched the meaning of the term network management well beyond the concepts of monitoring and administration, so much that a list of "network management systems" is vague at best, and completely useless in practice. This classification therefore is useless as a list in its current form, and instead should be replaced by a category, e.g. :Category:Network management systems. Todd Vierling (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that the list is self-described as a partial list, with no particular criteria for inclusion makes it even further problematic. I think making the category will serve the same function. If nobody objects, I may WP:BOLD-up and just do it. Arakunem^Talk 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• keep The list can add more information than a category, but we need to clean off those without an article, and set a standard for what is a network management system. A list of commercial products is a fair thing to have, it in the same category as list of airlines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems fine to me. If the term is indeed vague, Wikipedia could actually be of use in making it more clear, and perhaps provide more succinct and focused lists. Warren -talk- 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I listed the original so I can't vote again; however: I disagree that it's even possible to come up with hard criteria for what belongs on a "list of network management systems" (see original nomination comment). I suggested a category as an alternative for precisely the reason that a category doesn't allow describing entries in more detail; that is inherently more immune than a list to spammy content and marketspeak-stretched definitions of network management.

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:LIST, the three main purposes of a list are information, navigation and development. In this context without some sort of stringent inclusion criteria, development means attracting spam. Navigation isn't served due to the inhomogenous nature of the entries; it might serve information purposes, but would have to be rewritten completely to do so. Roughly half of the linked pages I checked didn't contain any reference to network management, making it something of an indiscriminate collection of information. Huon (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no encyclopedic reason to have all these together in a list, and some of these are very different products that happen to have "network management" in the ad copy somewhere. These range from SNMP-based tools to manage communications equipment, to monitoring tools, to programs that graph traffic statistics, and even proxy servers that censor which web sites you can see at work. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No encyclopedic value. I agree with the comment by Squidfryerchef above. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.