Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PED (editor)


 * 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   redirect to Norsk Data. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  18:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

PED (editor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced since 2009, no evidence of notability. Deprodded with the reason ' "Programmers' Editor" produces 15 pages of results in GBooks'. But of course it does: "programmers' editor" is a common noun phrase. Yet another reason that counting search engine hits is meaningless. — Keφr 07:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I failed to realise that there was more than one brand of "programmers' editor". But counting search engine results is not necessarily meaningless. There are many expressions that are sufficiently unambiguous that the number of results in GBooks and GScholar correlates closely with notability. If "programmers' editor" had been a protected trademark, it would probably have worked. James500 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Norsk Data or delete. It's a highly unlikely search term, but it's conceivable that someone might find it useful one day.  This is computing cruft of doubtful notability.  I see a few Google hits, but many of them seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Norsk Data: . James500 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Norsk Data. I checked the Norwegian entry for Norsk Data and it's not mentioned there.  This page lists sintran software documentation, but PED's appears to be lost.  I'm willing to cut a lot of slack for early software, but there just isn't enough out there to justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2014 (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.