Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinShell: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:51, 2 June 2009

WinShell

Contested PROD. The recently added references are not sufficient to demonstrate notability (they are not even close to significant coverage). Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar information provided in wikis like Texmaker, TeXnicCenter, WinEdt and LaTeX-Editor (LEd). Do they all have independent sources? Delete them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.113.165 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore notability not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Dawn Bard (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given mention in several sources, per their webpage. These should be added to the article. Also note that, procedurally, multiple PRODs are bad. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are LaTeX how-to guides. And the list clearly says "articles and books which mention WinShell". Notability requires more than mentions. Hairhorn (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the dutch article, WinShell takes up 1 of the 4 pages. It gets a whole page or more in Kopka & Daly's book too & is (with WinEdt) one of only two editors they recommend for Windows. I don't have access to the german/japanese books/video. The "mention" is more than incidental in more than one source. --Karnesky (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :{{la|WinShell}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:WinShell|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinShell]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinShell|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 2#{{anchorencode:WinShell}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 Contested PROD. The recently added references are not sufficient to demonstrate notability (they are not even close to significant coverage). Fails [[WP:N]]. [[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Keep.''' Similar information provided in wikis like [[Texmaker]], [[TeXnicCenter]], [[WinEdt]] and [[LaTeX-Editor (LEd)]]. Do they all have independent sources? Delete them all?
+*'''Keep.''' Similar information provided in wikis like [[Texmaker]], [[TeXnicCenter]], [[WinEdt]] and [[LaTeX-Editor (LEd)]]. Do they all have independent sources? Delete them all?   <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.148.113.165|84.148.113.165]] ([[User talk:84.148.113.165|talk]]) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 *'''Delete'''.  Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore notability not demonstrated.  [[User:Dawn Bard|Dawn Bard]] ([[User talk:Dawn Bard|talk]]) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—[[User:Dawn Bard|Dawn Bard]] ([[User talk:Dawn Bard|talk]]) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)</small>