Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPlus


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

EditPlus

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability even established, no reliable sources provided. Vacuum Cleaner 01 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I think this could be sourced. It has a checkered history as an article and was created by a near-WP:SPA, . I have used it myself, I have seen it come with glowing recommendations, but it's shareware and thus iffy to start with. --Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced & no assertion of notability (even if it is a good piece of software). /Blaxthos 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep - This is a well known software. The fact that the software exist can be easily verified at http://www.editplus.com I am wondering the reason for deleting the article about this software that is well known. Please note that "I don't know" is not equal to "non-notable" .... "I don't know" can also be translated as "I am a fool" :) :) :) 221.134.166.209 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC) — 221.134.166.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note 1: AFD is not a vote (unlike RFA).... So no need of signing in.
 * Note 1: A badly written article / "Cut-copy-pasted" article per se is NOT a criteria for deletion. If you have real concerns about WP, try editing your self.... Blatant Deletion is not a way to improve the WP
 * Comment. The stated reason for nominating for deletion is lack of notability and reliable sources.  Reliable sources must be independent of the subject to prove notability (ie, not an official website).  Find multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss this program and it can be kept.  As far as editing it over deleting it, this is only a good recomendation for articles that should be on Wikipedia in the first place, which has not been proven here.  Someguy1221 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong and Keep: - Shareware or not EditPlus is feature rich, stable and very competitive. It does more than most editors, and is fully functional without a license and works years after the trial period. It is one of the few text editors that is truly suitable for HTML/C++/Java/Makefile editing with syntax highlighting for each.

Deletion of this page invalidates wikipedia and would be pointless. If this should be deleted then so should 50% of all software related articles for non-proprietry software or ones bundled in a OS distros. Keldon85 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability is made in the article, and no independent sources provided.  If you think it should be kept, find sources to prove this topic complies with the notability guideline.  Someguy1221 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - EditPlus is one of the well known Text Editors (as compared to the others listed on Comparison of text editors) and the article can be kept as an unsourced stub. It has its own wiki, and I found some reviews about it with a simle Google search (like this one, this one with a 5/5 rating given to the tool, these, or this one). It has also been given a Softpedia Pick Award (and some other awards) and hight ratings on that site. Having all these and its history (about seven years now) I think this stub article, needs to be completed, and should not get deleted. huji— TALK 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Huji has summarised it pretty well. The article needs work to be unstubbed and properly sourced, but the software is notable. The fact that it still exists today as a shareware distributable, when there is such strong competition from open source and freeware alternatives is testament to that. In addition to the links Huji gave, there's also an active Yahoo Groups forum. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unimportant shareware (I'd support if it was freeware). Ace of Risk 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How does it being shareware/freeware/closed-source/open-source/commercial or whatever change anything here? - JNighthawk 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Shareware is paid for, and has an axe to grind as far as advertising and free publicity, freeware is more deserving of coverage. Ace of Risk 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- Well in my humble opinion, a shareware has just the same right to have an article on Wikipedia as a freeware, if they are in the same level of notability and, this is our duty to make the article a non-advertising one. In this special case, I see no advertising tone no EditPlus article. I mean, what you said has a good faith behind it, but nevertheless, we shouldn't allow Wikipedia to be used in an unequal way; putting more time on freewares would mean an unequality towards them. If you like to discuss this furthur, find me on my talk page. :) huji— TALK 03:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Huji on "good faith," but I think you have a basic mis-understanding of what advertising is, what Wikipedia's policies are, and what Wikipedia itself is. An article on a commercial subject is not advertising and is paramount to having a good encyclopedia. - JNighthawk 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep EditPlus is relatively well known, perhaps only slightly less than UltraEdit - JNighthawk 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite the program is wel known and notable, it just needs a better article G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 06:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I no longer see a reason not to keep, per Huji. G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I totally rewrote the article, as you requested :) huji— TALK 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs cleanup f'sure....but I don't like the precedent of deleting articles regarding software applications. There are lots of people who consult Wikipedia for feature comparison charts like this one, and this one, and it's not doing them any good at all to present them with a bunch of "oranged-out" dead links. In a day and age when mainstream media news agencies are being run by the corporate entertainment divisions, and a good 95% of technical information exchanges are occuring exclusively on internet fora, the hoary "notability" guidelines Wikipedia is presently employing are doing more harm than good -- you simply cannot expect newspapers and "big four" TV channels to write stories about such obscure technical subjects. This does not mean that nobody is interested in the material. I'd guess that about three-fourths of the "still alive because they're blue" linked applications on either of those comparison charts could be hosed under the same rationale as this one. But by deleting them, all you're doing is driving away readership segments and eliminating any positive reputation for comprehensiveness.--Mike18xx 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Huji's excellent reasoning, not per Mike18xx or Keldon85. Very nice start thanks to the rewrite. Ichibani  utc 03:20, 18 June 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.