Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad++

No claims of notability, no independent sources Corvus cornix 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a Google search shows quite a few independent references. Many of the hits are blogs, but even so, that does help to show some level of notability in the Internet community, even if they are not reliable sources in and of themselves. And this post from a Microsoft developer might count as a reliable source. Most of these blogs do actually discuss Notepad++ rather than simply mention it in passing. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but they do help to establish a level of notability. And I would argue that a blog hosted on the MSDN servers and written by Microsoft engineers could be considered a reliable source for Notepad-related subjects. *** Crotalus *** 21:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard it mentioned a lot by fellow programmers. Strong Keep. Corpx 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've heard of it" isn't a reliable source. Corvus cornix 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've tried it myself and it isn't bad, but apart from this trivial PCMag blurb, I can't find reliable sources in English (there may be some in other languages). --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a Google News search even of just the past 30 days yields a result, and there seem to be a number of nontrivial mentions of the program outside of the official website. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]