Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoHotkey

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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotkey

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

Only contains primary sources as references. I could only find http://www.pcworld.com/article/245835/autohotkey.html as a notable secondary source that discusses the product. It appears that this product is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I am an unbiased user of Auto Hot Keys. It has source-code which actually compiles! I am linking to it as we speak. That's how I got to this page. It is immensely useful but falls into the realm of un-talked about usefulness. Kind of like folklore... I will put up a link to keep it propped up I suppose... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellurl (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its existence and usefulness are not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the article is deleted from Wikipedia, it won't cease to exist and you are welcome to continue using it. The problem is that it is not talked about. Can you find any WP:RSes to support its [[:WP:N|notability]? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search reveals secondary sources seem to give it anywhere from more extensive, guide-like coverage to passing mention: [1][2][3][4][5]. A glance at the Google Book Search also reveals a number of mentions (outside of Wikipedia reprints), although most of these appear fairly brief from what I can see. It seems to get a lot of very passing mentions, but I think there's enough more extensive coverage out there to demonstrate notability. — daranz [ t ] 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw those as well, but I don't believe that how-to articles and mentions don't count as notable coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known and wildly popular app for Windows. It's been around forever. I don't see how the nominator went through WP:BEFORE and didn't notice? Google book results, third web hit is a review in PC World. There's no lack of sources or notability here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think AHK has suffered the unfortunate fate of being billed as nothing more than a shortcut tool. A way to launch a browser with a keystroke. In actuality it is a very useful scripting language for all manner of GUI creation. The AHK forums have literally tens of thousands of topics posted and hundreds of thousands of replies http://www.autohotkey.com/board/. So, it is obviously important to a significant community of users. Therefore, in my opinion it deserves a Wikipedia page. --Drrchrds (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the page needs an update, but deleting seems not justified. There are several sources such as c't which have written about the AHK Scripting language. There is a big community behind AHK as well. --Vital0 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you are looking for another third party source, lifehacker.com regularly features articles on AutoHotkey and posts useful snippets of code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.219.206 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.