Talk:List of electronic laboratory notebook software packages
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory
Please do not add new entries without at least one reliable secondary third-party source that supports the addition, provided as an inline citation by clicking the "Cite" button of the editor. Alternatively, link to an existing Wikipedia article. Additions that depend entirely on the official web presence of the product will be removed, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- I must do research on ELNs and now have to step back in the article history to see the full list. Wikipedia is not a directory but lists are explicitly allowed. Furthermore, I think that the official web presence is a reliable source. I don’t really care because I can go back in the history but I doubt that the deletions made the article better. – Torsten Bronger (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- ToBeFree's ideas are in keeping with the WP:NOTDIR guideline. As part of "lists are explicitly allowed", we're in the realm of WP:LISTCOMPANY. A subject's own website is generally not a "reliable source" per WP:RS, and the LISTCOMPANY guideline emphasizes that detail by saying the ref must be "independent". I agree that we should comply with that. I don't think we need to go to the stricter WP:WTAF (requiring that each entry be "notable", the list solely being WP articles. DMacks (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a list of companies but of ELNs, and the sources cannot be biased because they are only used here to prove the mere existence of the respective ELN, not to evaluate it. I agree that relevance is an issue; we don’t want tiny startups to promote their products on Wikipedia. However, deleting almost everything (including large companies such as Labfolder) still is odd to me. A template saying that this article has issues would have been more beneficial for the readers in my opinion. – Torsten Bronger (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- The article was tagged since January. Verifiability is a bare minimum, and many of the entries removed did not have any source, let alone an independent one or demonstation of "notability". DMacks (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a list of companies but of ELNs, and the sources cannot be biased because they are only used here to prove the mere existence of the respective ELN, not to evaluate it. I agree that relevance is an issue; we don’t want tiny startups to promote their products on Wikipedia. However, deleting almost everything (including large companies such as Labfolder) still is odd to me. A template saying that this article has issues would have been more beneficial for the readers in my opinion. – Torsten Bronger (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- ToBeFree's ideas are in keeping with the WP:NOTDIR guideline. As part of "lists are explicitly allowed", we're in the realm of WP:LISTCOMPANY. A subject's own website is generally not a "reliable source" per WP:RS, and the LISTCOMPANY guideline emphasizes that detail by saying the ref must be "independent". I agree that we should comply with that. I don't think we need to go to the stricter WP:WTAF (requiring that each entry be "notable", the list solely being WP articles. DMacks (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)