Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hessling 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 merge to XEDIT. Missvain (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The Hessling Editor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded this few months back with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". The article has been deprodded and slightly improved since, sadly, I am afraid the coverage shown is still a far cry from what GNG/NSOFT requires. Can anyone find anything to save this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per discussion with and the lack of a prior relist, I'm going to relist this
 * Comment: *Keep: (see alt information below Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)) The use of REXX macros is notably unqiue. However as my RL would be disrupted in attempting to RS I won't.  I am aware of the nom. and feel fucking goaded by the nomination. But there we fucking are. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Language, please. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: not enough coverage to justify a keep. Should someoneimprove and find more, I would be happy to re-evaluate. Webmaster862 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge: To XEDIT (I had originally thought Rexx) where it can usefully be accommodated without being WP:UNDUE but XEDIT is possibly better, possibly not). With acks to  for this decision to relist and ensuring nom. & contributors are notified. .  Merge option probably should have been identified early.  I hate relists but if in went to a DRV on a new information basis that would liekly be the end result.  To state the obvious I'd probably prefer to keep; but the cost/risk/benefit to me at this time for a search is unwarranted unless I happen across a good offline resource as a side catch of another source.  I confirm I am personally prepared to execute the Merge. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with SOFTDELETE and MERGE. Rescuing what we can is always preferable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * keep: the given sources establish notability. Editors who dispute that should make specific comments rather than blanket comments saying that they don't see anything notable. TEDickey (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Which "given source" is reliable, independent, and contains WP:SIGCOV of the subject? Editors who claim sources exist need to prove that first, per WP:BURDEN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:00, 30 April 2021 (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.