Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors

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 speedy keep‎. I unfortunately don't believe that this is likely to result in deletion at this point. This withdrawal doesn't foreclose future nominations, nor does this mean that I agree with any rationale presented here. (non-admin closure) HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was dePRODed in 2010 for being a "possibly valid combination article" -- however, this article consists of original research (in particular, it features a user's feature testing), and cleaning that up would amount to blanking the page. I'm not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a muddle.

When you say "it features a user's feature testing" which user do you mean, and how did you determine the content was original research and not simply awaiting a supporting citation? Relevant diffs would be helpful.
The latest substantive addition ([1]) appears to be sourced. Is it not? How so?
The only editor you notified hasn't edited in over a decade. More productive I'd think to notify active editors who you say introduced WP:OR into the article, since that's your basis for your claim that the only alternative to deletion is blanking the page. If they disagree I'd like to know why.
You're "not sure this topic is notable"? Please explain then which of the other 13 reasons for deletion are germaine to this discussion, and how. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

WP:STARTOVER would waste tens of hours of work that have been put into this article.
You're not going to find much in terms of WP:RS citing whether a JavaScript editor supports feature X or Y.
This Wikipedia page is the most impartial, reliable, visible, and easy to find place to collaborate on this work. Please let those willing to put effort into it, do so. You're welcome to join and improve the article. -- Dandv 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of the reasons listed are not valid reasons for deletion — everything can be fixed through editing. We don't delete articles just because they are unsourced. WP:TNT is irrelevant here (and should not be used for cleanup reasons like this anyways) because everything here can easily be fixed: References can be added, unverifiable statements can be removed. This is not a BLP so not everything has to have an inline citation. And if we were to TNT this, who's going to recreate the better version, especially when this version is already written and detailed? This is completely pointless and I suggest the nominator withdraw. C F A 💬 15:13, 22 June 2024 (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.