Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MadEdit


 * 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MadEdit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N; lacks significnat secondary coverage in reliable publications. PRODed before, deleted; PRODed again, remvoed by author without stating a reason. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom, NN and no secondary sources. Spawn Man Review Me! 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsure - we have pages for, say, NEdit and Yudit and dozens of other text editors that don't appear any more or less special than MadEdit. Why delete the MadEdit page and not at least 20 others from the List of text editors as well? --Arcanios (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. We must evaluate an article on its own own merits, not by comparing to other articles. If NEdit and Yudit and those dozens of others aren't notable either, then they should be proposed for deletion as well. Their presence isn't an argument to keep. =Axlq (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: True, their presence alone isn't an argument to keep. But if nobody has seen fit to AfD any of the 50 or so articles on other text editors, many of the arguments for that apply here as well. I hate double standards, that's all. --Arcanios (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a prime example of why "If article X then article Y." is fallacious. Unlike, which is at least mentioned in approximately 60 books, this subject is mentioned in no books at all.  Uncle G (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep some appearances in secondary sources, e.g. "Adding images to web pages using Adobe Photoshop 3.0 and Madedit. Library Software Review, 15, 88-52.". 12,000+ ghits, though most of them refer to Debian packages. Not really sure, but in dubio pro keepo. --Arcanios (talk) 10:17, 19 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.