Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinShell: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:26, 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]

Comment: Other stuff exists is not a helpful argument in deletion discussions, but as you have raised it, yes, if those articles don't meet the inclusion criteria they should be deleted. In fact I will take a look at them right now. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to make a WP:POINT? --Karnesky (talk)

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]

There also seems to be exclusive coverage on this in TUGboat. --Karnesky (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 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?   <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-->
+:*'''Comment''': [[WP:OSE|Other stuff exists]] is not a helpful argument in deletion discussions, but as you have raised it, yes, if those articles don't meet [[WP:N|the inclusion criteria]] they should be deleted. In fact I will take a look at them right now.&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
+::* Are you trying to make a [[WP:POINT]]? --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]])
 *'''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>
@@ Line 11: / Line 13: @@
 :*All the sources are LaTeX how-to guides. And the list clearly says "articles and books which mention WinShell". Notability requires more than mentions. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 ::* 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. --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]]) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
+There also seems to be exclusive coverage on this in [[TUGboat]]. --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]]) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 {{ambox
 | type  = content