Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad (3rd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

EditPad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This is extremely ref-bombed (100+ refs), but it the reviews cited are limited to a single forum post, and my search only found a one-paragraph review here and a blank-page review (? - maybe my ad blocker kills it?). The heavily refbombed section on use and such is composed of mentions in passing/primary sources. No indication of any awards. Article created by new account from August, not a run-by-night WP:SPA but clearly not someone new around here, and I'd like to ask the creator if they stop by here, whether they have any WP:COI to disclose. This was tagged by User:Charmk for a likely advert lacking notability, and I agree. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I found only few mentions in InfoWorld and PC Mag magazines, which may be enough for a redirect (however, I don´t see a clear redirect target here), but certainly not for a stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG Charmk (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. It has been recognized as having technical significance by reliable sources, thus is presumed to be notable if it meets this criteria. Notability (software) There are more cites of EditPad, due to its unique ability to edit huge files with huge line lengths, than any other text editor currently deemed "notable". MILL EditPad has been used for graduate thesis software development, journalism, penetration testing, computer chess, extending and describing game software, scholarly Literature Text Encoding with XML markup metadata, Mathematics publication, linguistics, medieval Arabic text analysis, and data formatting, and is US government approved. Biologists use it for managing genetic sequences. Mathematicians, literature scholars, physicists, and computer scientists use it for their work. They all cite the software in their publications. There are hundreds of cites at Gscholar. The programmer is a Belgian, living in Thailand, I have no relationship to anything related to the product, but the product is unique and needs a Wikipedia page. In 2007 a self-confessed sock-puppet forum-shopped the deletion of many text editors besides EditPad with a 50% deletion rate. "refbomb"? Actually just trying to not be poorly sourced, like most of the other text editors currently deemed notable. User:Tedickey=Thomas Dickey author of Vile (text editor) objected to my adding an external link to a Carnegie Mellon University course on vi. Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are nine positive reviews listed for EditPad. It has been improved over the last 24 years.Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NoteTab has no positive reviews at all, and no references at all. EditPlus has no positive reviews at all, and no references at all. Notepad2 has no positive reviews at all, and no second-party references at all. Metapad has no positive reviews at all, and no second-party references at all. GWD Text Editor has no positive reviews at all, and no second-party references at all. Crimson Editor has no non-download descriptions at all.Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Article created by new account from August" actually I am User:Xb2u7Zjzc32→→→→→→→Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, "vote" keep only once (use "comment" etc. for other input). Could you list two or three (ONLY three) reviews you think are best (in sense broad coverage of the article subject)? That would certainly help to judge notability here. Pavlor (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll also add WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ping User:Sandstein for an admin to cross out improper multiple votes from a single account. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, but I hope the closer will be able to take this into account now that you've mentioned it.  Sandstein   10:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Was just adding more info and re-iterating my opinion, it seemed I was following tradition, there was no attempt to imply a "vote" twice. I can indent them if it confuses. It sure seems like this piece of software has a higher bar than Metapad, Notepad2, NoteTab, GWD Text Editor, EditPlus, they don't have anything like what you ask for this program.  User:Vacuum Cleaner 01 (sockpuppet) opposes Crimson Editor, EditPlus, Metapad, EditPlus, SlickEdit. The fundamental difference to all these other Microsoft Notepad-like programs is that it will edit HUGE files with HUGE "lines" (edit unusually large files) and academics use it because it does that for free, this separates EditPad from these simpler text editors. Most reviews are in academic papers describing its essential quality for research published. Other stuff exists does not apply because its unique abilities that  Metapad, Notepad2, NoteTab, GWD Text Editor, EditPlus do not have. I object to these baseless ad hominem attacks, and no real reading of the article by these commenters seems evident. No refuting of any of the facts I have stated have occurred. This is a well-researched article, a huge iceberg,  no couple of mass-market glib magazine reviews can compare to a huge number of published academic researchers. Read the references. "the reviews cited are limited to a single forum post" is not true. The claim of  WP:GNG is not true. The claim of nothing at Gscholar is not true. Read the references. It passes WP:N WP:V WP:RS WP:NOT. This is software with significant historical and technical importance. TYPSET and RUNOFF, QED (text editor), Univac Text Editor, ed (text editor) did not have blurbs in Datamation but they are referenced in textbooks and research. Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per above. Zing ( Talk! ) 04:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)  Striking vote by a banned sockpuppet
 * WP:KEEPPER is not a helpful vote, particularly where the only keep above is from the article creator who clerly has some problems with Wikipedia policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is written in too severe of an advertising tone. The citation overkill (two sentences in the "Edit Pad Lite" section has 21 references) is beyond comprehension and with the bloated external links section (see: Spam event horizon) amounts to spam; There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Look at the Regular Expressions Cookbook and Just Great Software sections. The subject is supposed to be "EditPad" not "Jan Goyvaerts" and I think it is beyond fixing. Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (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.