Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Editor


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crimson Editor

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant advertising of a software product. Does not try to establish notability, does not contain notable references, or reliable sources. All provided reviews comes from users or are copy-paste, they are not peer reviews. Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't consider this blatant advertising, but I agree that no assertion of notability is provided.  Further, the only possibly reliable source is the product's website, leaving the article with zero independent sources.  And as a heads up for anyone attempting the google test, Crimson editor is used in reference to editors of The Harvard Crimson, and will return numerous false hits.  Someguy1221 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This isn't blatant advertising; "BUY CRIMSON EDITOR TODAY" would be blatant advertising. The article could probably use some work on references, but as it stands it's a reasonable stub on a somewhat popular freeware/open source text editor. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a popular freeware and I use it once in a while, so Keep. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can anyone provide an actual, reliable and independent source supporting that this article is notable?  Being very popular is possibly notable, but verification is required from reliable sources, not forums or ghit counts.  Someguy1221 09:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's rewind a bit further. Can anyone provide an actual, "reliable and independent" idea of what would constitute notability in the case of a text editor, such as would satisfy Vacuum Cleaner 01 or Someguy1221? What exactly is behind the this urge to go round deleting articles on text editors? (see also Articles_for_deletion/Metapad, Articles for deletion/EditPad Articles_for_deletion/EDXOR and no doubt others to come) As for references, what exactly is in doubt here, and where better to get them than the software's website? Flapdragon 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Look at WP:N for an idea of what constitutes notability in general.  The article's website does not constitute an independent source.  If someone could just provide reviews of this product from reliable and independent sources, that would do.  We don't need articles on every piece of freeware floating around the internet.  Someguy1221 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. How's this for a review? A quick search on Google will elicit many others.--duncan 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your link seems dead, so I had to look in the Google cache, and the "review" is actually labeled as "ADVERTISEMENT."  Someguy1221 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean about the link being 'dead'; it works for me. This review dates from 1 May 2007.  There are some google ads on the side nav, but the page itself isn't labelled as an advertisement.--duncan 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive my browser for going wonky on me. Someguy1221 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is hard to consider freeware as a spam entry, however, there are no reliable sources in this article, which makes it entirely original research. The topic may be acceptable, but the article is not. the_undertow talk  22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, would someone point me out where the advertisement is? Please go through the list of text editors - you will find many editors which are really not notable, say Leafpad. --minghong 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs cleanup, but should not be deleted. --Crunch 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crimson is one of better editors, now going open source Rafikk 21:02, 21 May 2007 (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.