Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of version-control software

Comparison of version-control software

Comparison of version-control software (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)

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia for the rest of reasoning see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands Dncmartins (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment We have a lot of comparison tables so I dont think thats necessarily OR. You can source elements of similar things in categories, like brands of a phone. In that other AFD, the idea was far too broad to have any meaningful comparison. Whereas something like comparison of iphones would work. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  The idea behind this comparison if far too broad to have any meaningful comparison. Maybe a comparison of git clients would work. So, this article need to be deleted. Dncmartins (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  It was quite reasonable to compare all version control software. The real issue seems to be Git now has an insurmountable lead in the field and therefore there are now more implementations of Git than there were distinct VCSes 20 years ago.

  Perhaps what you really want is for the article to be split into two distinct articles? First one would be comparison of Git implementations and second one would be comparison of historical VCSes? ~2026-86048-7 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I wasnt saying this is not too broad, just that your citation of that other AFD is not necessarily applicable here, and also clarifying why that article was inappropriate. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be yet another similar list that is entirely based on WP:OR. Srijanx22 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Could you point to a specific example which you think is original research? ~2026-86048-7 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I see very little which could be considered OR. Most of the article is verifiable facts if you're familiar with the subject matter. A few things are hazy though; does Subversion's tag-like mechanism truly qualify as tags; does Git's rename detection actually qualify as handling file renames?

A bigger concern is the entire field of version control is converging (has converged?) on Git. It no longer seems too useful to compare all version control systems. Any version control software which doesn't implement the Git data formats/transfer protocol is effectively legacy at this point. Then we have the comparison of what extra things various software layers onto Git.

Could you point to the spot which you think qualifies as Original Research? ~2026-81125-4 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. This article is too similar to that one that got deleted. If you think otherwise please state why. Wikipedia needs to be consitent about what kind of articles to keep or delete, or it will be considered and inconsistent joke and eaten up by new alternatives like Grokipedia. Dncmartins (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It is too similar to an article which got deleted and is therefore unavailable. The proposal for deletion is on the claim of being original research, yet none has been cited. Uhm. ~2026-86048-7 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Version control systems exist, so does Template:Version control software. A list article is more useful since it allows more information to be displayed so people can find what they want. 84 references in the article already. Everything listed has its own article, so you can find additional references for anything listed there. Got 100 entries in Category:Software comparisons and over a hundred more in its subcategories. The deletion nomination mentions an unrelated comparison article about smart phones, which has absolutely nothing to do with any comparison list about software. Dream Focus 08:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  For the referenced deleted article, Category:Mobile phones also existed and each of the referenced articles existed with its template. The deleted article had even more references than this one. Everything was also listed in it own article. I mention the referenced article deletion because it is a Wikipedia policy that this kind or articles are not allowed and must be deleted. Wikipedia deletion policy must be consistent or it will be a joke and eaten up by new alternatives like Grokipedia. Dncmartins (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  It has never been consistent. Since the beginning, whether an article gets deleted or not depends on the random number of people that notice and participate, and the opinions of the administrator closing it. This article is 20 years old, and no one had a problem with it before. You created the article Comparison of smartphone brands, it got deleted, so then you came to try to delete this one. Seen that happen many times before as well. Dream Focus 09:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  That the point of this discussion. Wikipedia needs to agree on wether it is governed by inconsistent opinions or consistent policies. Dncmartins (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs major work, but I don't see any original research. Primarily time has changed what sorts of differences are relevant, and many VCSes which were under active development in 2006 no longer are.

~2026-89687-3 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

That's what I suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands but it got deleted anyway according to Wikipedia policy. Dncmartins (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Most in that AFD said Keep. You can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion_review if you want. No need to keep bringing it up here. Just because your article got deleted, doesn't mean other articles should. Sometimes administrators make mistakes. I don't know, since I can't see what the article is, but at deletion review it becomes visible to everyone again, nothing ever really deleted. Dream Focus 21:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I did not know of this process. I already filled it. Let's see if Wikipedia is based on policies or opinions. Dncmartins (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• This nomination is a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I still need to know Wikipedia policy on Comparison articles. If the policy if that Comparison articles are not allowed then this article should be deleted. Dncmartins (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural keep. This nomination is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Nominator was displeased that an unrelated comparison article they created was nominated for deletion. When that discussion was trending delete, they canvassed editors of this artlce to argue against deletion. After that AfD discussion closed as delete, they nominated this article for deletion using (their interpretation of) the same rationale. Contemporaneously, they're continuing to also argue against deletion of their article at DRV by challenging that rationale. Now, I assume good faith, appreciate the enthusiasm, and recognize the frustration at having one's own work deleted. And there are definitely shades of grey about OR/SYNTH issues in comparison articles that could perhaps use a more systematic look. But this cannot reasonably be done in response to a WP:POINTY deletion nomination, with the nominator continuing to argue both for and con what they feel is the similar situation (I'm not convinced it is) in two articles. In particular, they clearly seem to continue to feel that articles like theirs and like this one should not be deleted (arguing so actually both here and in the DRV). Martinp (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Go to the nominator's talk page (or AfD) if you think their actions are problematic. This AfD is not your space to wax poetic about perceived misbehavior in a completely different AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  (I assume you meant ...or AN not ..or AfD) My issue is less that user behaviour needs changing, which would indeed be an AN/user talk page issue, except I think it's natural human frustration and not worth correcting. Rather, it's that we have an AfD here whose nominator seems not to believe the arguments they are advancing. They want this and their own article kept, and seem to have nominated this article for deletion in order to either advance their own agenda, or force more nuanced policy to be set with clarity and explanations to their satisfaction. Now I'm not saying "speedy keep" or "close" this discussion, since there are cogent voices, yours included, arguing for deletion here. But I do think this discussion is tainted, and absent particularly clear consensus to the contrary, *this* article is better kept at this time. I also think that the closer of this discussion, whoever it will be, needs to be aware that the nominator, one of the voices advocating deletion here, doesn't actually seem to believe in the argument for deletion they are advancing. Martinp (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I meant ANI, yes, sorry about that. I would be more inclined to believe that this behavior is disruptive if they instantly nominated ten different comparison articles with the same rationale. Nominating articles requires some due diligence in researching the subject (as prescribed in WP: BEFORE), and nominations in such a great volume would indicate that such due diligence would not have been completed. We have little evidence that shows the nominator did not do their due diligence before nominating this article for deletion.

  In this case, we have a nominator who has nominated one comparison article and said that it is filled with original research. The evidence that this nomination was made to prove a point is highly circumstantial, because a.) most of the evidence is based on an AfD discussion only tangentially related to this one, and b.) this article is actually filled with original research. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural keep per Martinp. At the end of the day, there probably should be some sort of discussion about the expectations around comparison pages. In general, I think they are OR/SYNTH, but I also think it is possible for their existince (more likely within a product line) when there is exceptional coverage. I also think that WP:NCORP may apply in these cases. --Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete: AfDs for "Comparison of X" articles are usually filled with poorly constructed arguments, and unfortunately this one is no different. We have four Keep !votes here, all of which have no basis in policy and two of which are really just assuming the nominator made this nomination in bad faith. The relevant policy here is WP: NLIST. We already have List of version control software, so only the following passage applies:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Too many users read these two sentences and view it as an invitation to !vote with their unsubstantiated opinion, devoid of any reference to Wikipedia policy. Additionally, calls for a meta-discussion about what to do about comparison articles are a distraction from the issue at hand, which is whether we should keep or delete this article.

There are two simple arguments for why this should be deleted:

First, there is way too much original research here to consider keeping this article around. One user mentioned above that there's several dozen sources, but fails to mention how many additional sources we'd need to fix the article. Looking at the first table alone, we are missing sources for nearly every entry, and the sources that we do have are all primary. It is very telling that not a single person has added a single source to this article in the two weeks that it has stood nominated for deletion, and it is because adding sources for every entry in these tables is a pointless endeavor. Keep !voters who think that this article is fixable should go and actually do so instead of trying to argue here. There are seven more tables in this article that are in a similar state, each with tens or hundreds of entries. Good luck finding a source that says Rational Team Concert has a limited integration with MS Visual Studio!

Second, we already have a standalone article for a list of version control software. This means that this article fails the "recognized informational, navigation, or development" purposes criterion that WP: NLIST posits. For example, I am not aware of any source that tries to compare version control systems across a selection of the nine "advanced features" that the article posits. The choice to list out which version control systems have a grep command appears to be a decision made by an individual editor and is thus original research.

In any case, I don't see what specifically this encyclopedia has to lose by deleting this article, considering we already have an extensive list, as mentioned above. If we deleted all the unsourced content in this article, we'd basically be in a WP: TNT situation. I have no opposition to a merge or a redirect to this article if that's what people would prefer. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2026 (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.