Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gedit


 * 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 The result was speedy keep as nobody other than the nominator has voted to delete and I have decided to withdraw. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gedit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't meet WP:N - does not feature significant secondary coverage, which for software programs usually come in the form of reviews. I did a scroogle search and the only decent review that I could find that could be considered "significant" is that of Softpedia which does not meet the criteria of multiple sources. After about 20 links, the hits literally become that – unrelated pages where they mention "gedit" in passing. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Set aside that FUTON bias. Look in books.  Start with pages 254–255 of ISBN 0072261544 and page 137 of ISBN 8170088631.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Somehow I was aware of Google Books.  Does a single paragraph and a single entry constitute significant coverage? (ISBN 0072261544).  "Beginning Ubuntu Linux" mentions devotes a single header to it – "Using Gedit to edit text files."  Is that non-trivial?  Maybe it should be redirected into the GNOME article instead? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some links I found:   . Also, the fact that "gedit" yields 1,070,000 hits sounds significant to me. I wonder if there are some old magazines that contain reviews of gedit, which I suspect is likely. I think the real question we should be asking if we can come up with some more concrete criteria for open source programs. Doing afd for each program is quite daunting, in my opinion. -- Taku (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria are concrete. We want multiple non-trivial published works, from independent and reliable sources, discussing, analyzing, and documenting the subject, where published works can include and are not limited to magazine reviews, sections in books or even whole books, journal articles, and independently written documentation.  See Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability.  Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Commonly used editor. Should have an article. Hobit (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and add the sources that are surely out there. --Jack Merridew 10:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Popular and notable editor. Reviews are not always the best indicator of notability. -- Masterzora (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As published works, they are good indicators. They show that something is notable because it has been noted.  Notability is not fame nor importance.  This is not an encyclopedia of what's popular.  It's an encyclopaedia of what is already known, acknowledged beyond its creators/authors/inventors/discoverers, and firmly documented.  Popularity is not a criterion.  Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess a more accurate statement of what I was trying to say is "lack of reviews is not always the best indicator of lack of notability". I was more trying to inform the nominator that he/she should have looked beyond reviews before putting this up for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the default text editor in GNOME and part of the default GNOME installation in most distributions. That alone would qualify as the reason for notability; many popular Linux dists use GNOME by default and include gedit in the default apps. Example: Debian popcon by_inst rank of (incre-fng-dible) 692 out of 28147 packages! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:06, 17 December 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.