Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSE HTML Validator

CSE HTML Validator

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

No evidence of notability, most edits to the article are by the person who wrote the software. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Only two of the sources offered even discuss this product and both of them are WP:PRIMARY. The rest of citations discuss other software products this one is claimed to be compatible with. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the developer of CSE HTML Validator. It's a software program that has been around since early 1997 (check the whois on its domain name htmlvalidator.com) and has thousands of customers. Other software products have integrated support for it, as listed in the article. It's also mentioned in several web development books sold on Amazon.com by major publishers. Recommend keeping it. AWiersch (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)... ALSO: A search for "HTML validator software" on Google lists CSE HTML Validator's website in the #1 spot, and the next 3 sites listed (spots 2-4) are also related to CSE HTML Validator. It's also #1 on bing.com for the same search. AWiersch (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That says a search can be useful. I'm not simply talking about the number of hits. I'm talking about the quality, not quantity. AWiersch (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, after some minutes of despamming the article isn't too bad anymore. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quality is improved, but it still lacks the independent and reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability as required by our policy at WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, I found only one reference on the listed pages apart from self-published integration plugins. I didn't try hard, just quick scans for "valid" on pages with features of the listed 3rd party products, ignoring one case where I ended up on the CSE HTML validator forum. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Wiersch has done an outstanding job in two areas:

[1] Search engine optimization and

[2] Working with other product vendors to add HTML validation to their products by using his product as a module (which also speaks well of his coding skills -- it's hard to be compatible with multiple products written by multiple vendors).

What his product is lacking -- and what is required by our Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]