Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSE HTML Validator


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   keep. Nakon 02:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

CSE HTML Validator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, most edits to the article are by the person who wrote the software. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Only two of the sources offered even discuss this product and both of them are WP:PRIMARY.  The rest of citations discuss other software products this one is claimed to be compatible with.  Googling turned up nothing useful.  Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm the developer of CSE HTML Validator. It's a software program that has been around since early 1997 (check the whois on its domain name htmlvalidator.com) and has thousands of customers. Other software products have integrated support for it, as listed in the article. It's also mentioned in several web development books sold on Amazon.com by major publishers. Recommend keeping it. AWiersch (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)... ALSO: A search for "HTML validator software" on Google lists CSE HTML Validator's website in the #1 spot, and the next 3 sites listed (spots 2-4) are also related to CSE HTML Validator. It's also #1 on bing.com for the same search. AWiersch (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AWiersch (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.


 * See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That says a search can be useful. I'm not simply talking about the number of hits. I'm talking about the quality, not quantity. The software is the top hit for the search I mentioned and Google is very particular about giving results that people want. AWiersch (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, after some minutes of despamming the article isn't too bad anymore. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The quality is improved, but it still lacks the independent and reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability as required by our policy at WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Updated, I found only one reference on the listed pages apart from self-published integration plugins. I didn't try hard, just quick scans for "valid" on pages with features of the listed 3rd party products, ignoring one case where I ended up on the CSE HTML validator forum. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Albert Wiersch has done an outstanding job in two areas:
 * [1] Search engine optimization and
 * [2] Working with other product vendors to add HTML validation to their products by using his product as a module (which also speaks well of his coding skills -- it's hard to be compatible with multiple products written by multiple vendors).
 * What his product is lacking -- and what is required by our Notability -- is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Searching for CSE HTML Validator at https://books.google.com shows that it has been noted (hence it is notable) in several books by major publishers. AWiersch (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Good, please add one or two where you can see that they really discuss the software. Completely unplanned while doing something else I stumbled over https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#acknowledgments - but that's about your notability ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "really" discuss the software, but here are some that do more than just list or mention the software (that is, it talks a little about it or gives instructions on how to use it): https://books.google.com/books?id=j84aAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT464&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw https://books.google.com/books?id=UNdGyEGZ1SkC&pg=PA286&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA https://books.google.com/books?id=2c-tF6bzaKcC&pg=PA490&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZDBduz1krlIC&pg=PA118&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ Here's a recent YouTube video made by someone else (Andy Williams): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2GjmsN5Uoc AWiersch (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "more than just list" sounds good. My own google scholar searches to show the notability of something where I was sure that it should be notable often ended on obscure papers mentioning the term once in a general intro, with a reference later, and talking about something completely different in their main sections. :-( –Be..anyone (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Okay, I'm satisfied by the WordPress 3 Search Engine Optimization and HTML in 10 Simple Steps or Less sources.  WP:GNG requires only that multiple reliable independent secondary sources exist, not that they must be cited in the article (which these aren't).  This establishes notability, which is pretty much all we consider at AfD.  Everything else is content, for discussion somewhere else.  Msnicki (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The WordPress 3 Search Engine Optimization ref meets GNG, in my opinion. Note that I am !voting to keep, not withdrawing my nomination. I have never liked the fact that whoever files has a one-person veto and prefer that AFDs be closed normally. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (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.