Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeXnicCenter


 * 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TeXnicCenter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software - no sources to support notability. In fact no claim of notability is made. ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage in at least thirteen books and part of ProTeXt.  It also has exclusive coverage in TUGboat and The PracTeX Journal. Nominator has made other AfDs on this subject. --Karnesky (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then cite those books in the article. And I am not being pointy here -- software, even free sofware, doesn't get a free pass on notability. This article has been around since 2005 without a single reference to support notability. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So tag it as being unreferenced. Don't nominate something for deletion because someone disagreed with you in another AfD. How do these nominations improve wikipedia? --Karnesky (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have no axe to grind here and I am not reacting to "disagreement". I have much thicker skin than that. – ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * References have been added. --Karnesky (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I was wondering what ukexpat has against software projects being listed in wikipedia and then I saw that he is a lawyer. Anyway enough flaming. There are many less notable entries in wikipedia and this one has references and provides a useful resource to a community so I vote for keeping it. ardalby
 * 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.