Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualEditor

VisualEditor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see that this has reached 'notability'; it isnt standalone software. It is part of MediaWiki, is only deployed on some Wikipedias, and it is only because of the notability of Wikipedia that there are PR pieces about this feature. It is a paragraph in the article about MediaWiki and Wikipedia; not a standalone article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. Ansh666 06:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per below. Somehow that didn't cross my mind. Ansh666 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki for the time being. If the secondary coverage adds up, it might still become a notable standalone topic. GregorB (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MediaWiki. Per source searches, the topic doesn't appear have received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article (WP:GNG). However, this information would enhance the MediaWiki article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per WP:NTEMP - Changed my initial !vote above (now struck & indented). Upon review of User talk:Widefox's sources below, these reliable sources provide significant coverage: The Economist, PC World, DNA. Also, here's coverage from The Guardian. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources Engadget The economist techzone360 softpedia h-online pcworld The Guardian DNA India The Verge Ubergizmo iamdigitalnative Ghacks The Next Web techgeek.com.au ciol.com Webpronews pcadvisor.co.uk
- not RS secondary: shellypalmer technology.org bristolwireless wikipediocracy thewikipedian primary spamblocked non-RS Widefox; talk 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more sources The Verge #2 dailydot.com The Register The Atlantic aosabook.orgWidefox; talk 12:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep (article creator) That's enough secondary sources for a standalone article WP:GNG. Don't think NOTINHERITED is obvious per se apply as sources are about this topic (and MediaWiki, en.WP) and it is a distinct, notable software subproject/component (cf Init Windows PowerShell V8 (JavaScript engine) SpiderMonkey (JavaScript engine) etc - WP:OTHERSTUFF applies of course). There's scope for full article: browser support profile is different, reaction/acceptance, use in sizable parents MediaWiki Wikipedia English Wikipedia History of Wikipedia Template:Wikipedia (history section), 103 files in commons, with standalone article having overlapping scope to parents, although take point about how tied to MediaWiki it is. (note any merge/redirect should take account of this formerly being a cross-space redirect). Widefox; talk 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current coverage might be argued to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. It has to be not only reasonably wide, but also reasonably continuous (as opposed to episodic). It is far from clear whether VisualEditor will receive any coverage a year or two down the road or not. GregorB (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the rollout announcements might, changed to weak keep. It is lacking a couple of articles on the ~~technology~~, ~~feedback~~, or effect on WP. WP:NOTTEMPORARY would discount the future coverage aspect though. Widefox; talk 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After adding the partnership details with Wikia, and feedback from editors I'm quite happy to go back to full keep on balance. Some IT project articles can surface as news sources, being able to have an article to include published feedback is, I believe a healthy thing. Although I understand the concerns of other editors based on NEWS, it would seem a bit early to merge a topic that's not going away with significant coverage. I believe this topic should be handled as any other topic, but nom based on software subprojects not being notable is flawed. In order to keep perceptions of WP being NPOV about this topic, as the nom is a committee member of the Wikimedia Australia, extra care should be taken to decide based on policy, standalone software is irrelevant to notability. We shouldn't bend over to keep it, or shoot ourselves in the foot to delete either. One source I found has forked it to incorporate in their own wiki anyhow, as is common with open source projects (cf javascript engines above). Widefox; talk 12:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has had coverage in external sources here and here among other places. It therefore fits the notability guideline and should be kept as such.155blue (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki. Is there coverage? Yes. Is it independently notable? Not in the slightest. Most of the coverage violates WP:NOTNEWS as being stuff about its release. 155blue's sources both fall into that trap, as do the majority of Widefox's sources (many of which fall a long way short of RS anyway, such as Wikipediocracy and Examiner) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Mediawiki. Without the unnecessary quote and excessive usage details there's hardly any content, and it's never likely to grow beyond a stub (or if it could, because it becomes a notable standalone product, the article will no doubt be restarted).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the quote captures the project motivation, and as a primary source I quoted it. Improved/Expanded - I believe it now is on a better footing to be rescued. Widefox; talk 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Widefox; talk 13:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visual editor. Redirecting to MediaWiki would be a mistake because visual editor (with a space) is a widely used generic term (the first visual editor may have been vi). This is a plausible search term and it would be confusing for editors to find themselves at a page about Wikipedia when searching for information about visual editors. Pburka (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]