Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editix xml editor (2nd 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! 05:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Editix xml editor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Relisting per concern my close being problematic - this can't be linked to from a list as a redirect, and there probably wasn't enough discussion. The previous discussion that I closed is here. I am neutral. — Jake   Wartenberg  02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not neutral.  This product is not notable.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. No interest to write you like or not. Study the references and decide after, this is not a debate on this tool ugly or nice but on the interest to put it on wikipedia.
 * Delete. The sources brought by the author are not enough to establish notability. Most of them only brieftly mention the app, often as part of lists of XML editors. In some of these sources, I couldn't even find Editix mentioned at all. If the author of the app wants to have it on Wikipedia he needs to bring ONE good reliable source such as a review in a notable website, not 10 unreliable ones. Laurent (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here a sample from the Laboratory for Digital Philology showing usage for their work with editix screenshots : http://www.pizan.lib.ed.ac.uk/lab/.
 * . 8 references to EditiX.
 * — 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Ok let's see:
 * - This is not about Editix, and the app name is only mentioned twice
 * - Doesn't seem to be reliable. I couldn't find any editorial policy and the review has no author.
 * - unreliable self published source, and again the app is only mentioned. It's not a review.
 * - name is only mentioned. Absolutely nothing is said about the app itself.
 * - name is only mentioned as part of a list of XML editors.
 * Again, if the app was notable, you'd only need to bring ONE good source and not 10 poor ones. Laurent (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Ok let's see:
 * - This is not about Editix, and the app name is only mentioned twice
 * - Doesn't seem to be reliable. I couldn't find any editorial policy and the review has no author.
 * - unreliable self published source, and again the app is only mentioned. It's not a review.
 * - name is only mentioned. Absolutely nothing is said about the app itself.
 * - name is only mentioned as part of a list of XML editors.
 * Again, if the app was notable, you'd only need to bring ONE good source and not 10 poor ones. Laurent (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. All your remarks Laurent, proves a wiki article is required for explaining this tool. I disagree with most of your remarks, mainly with the first reference with screenshots and explicit editix usage from a university team about language research (there's even a logo of the editix application at the right of the page). — 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:N requires that the "sources address the subject directly in detail", that's why an actual review would be better than all those links. In the first reference, they only briefly mention Editix. They explain how to access their database using the software, so it's not directly about the software - it's mainly about their database. Laurent (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "EditiX offers an Xpath 2 query builder for direct interrogation of the current XML file" extracted from the article. It is written "of the current XML file" not from a database, They never explain how to access a database from this tool, they use an external database "exist", they work on XML documents using editix and using XQuery and XPath request which is normal for an XML editor. Here another article http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:bOPvxzg0pO8J:www.researcherdevelopment.ed.ac.uk/RLIF/Lab_Digital_Philology_Report.pdf+edimburg+editix&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr. With " establish a working platform based on EditiX and eXist which is easily accessible for any researcher in this field". There're 8 references to EditiX !! — 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is used by universities. — 82.230.182.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Does that somehow magically make notability? That is the poorest justification I have seen on Wikipedia, random IP address. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:This is your opinion, I don't understand your "random" remark, is it a "random" remark too ?. Look at the tool references, this is what is notable or not : Here a sample from the Laboratory for Digital Philology showing usage for their work with editix screenshots : http://www.pizan.lib.ed.ac.uk/lab/.
 * . 8 references to EditiX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.182.104 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Still, that is one research project, and it is like saying "well because I used notepad to type up my thesis, notepad is notable" which is poor justification. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, this is not notepad, so don't compare something with very few features to another tool for your opinion. The problem is not here, the problem is : does this kind of articles is enough for saying EditiX is notable or not ?. We don't care about opinions on the tool or IP (??), we only want to know if this tool is notable for being in wikipedia or not. There's some universities articles and books on it, does is it enough ???, that's the only discussion, I say "yes" and some other say "no", the problem is that the "opposite" doesn't have arguments other like "this is not enough notable, there's only 1 reference..." or with poor understanding of the technical article. — 82.230.182.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * and books on it - That's not true, the books are not "on it" or about it, the software is barely mentioned and someone reading these sources wouldn't even learn anything about Editix other than it's an XML editor. WP:N requires that sources address the subject directly in detail.
 * the problem is that the "opposite" doesn't have arguments - How about my detailed review of your sources above? Laurent (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never write on you Laurent. Your comments are welcome but this is only one opinion, my opinion is different from you Laurent, I consider this tool notable for being keeped. We need more opinions on the references otherwise, this is impossible to know if this tool is notable or not for wikipedia. Comments like "I like" or "I hate" are outside the debate, most comments here are this kind, absolutly no interest for keeping or deleting this article. In doubt for this article, I propose to keep definitly.
 * Delete Based on list of non-sources left by IP addresses. Miami33139 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment We discuss on the article, not on IP, I never get an account, what's the problem ??...
 * Keep — 79.88.99.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.