Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPlus (2nd nomination)

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 delete. czar 02:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EditPlus

[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Old AfD from 10 years ago cited few soures but neither of them appears to meet WP:RS, most have rotted away, what remains is "publisher description+user review at a download site, and this review at a very niche portal. I don't think that's enough. WP:NOTCATALOGUE of software etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going to Comparison of text editors and checking links at random from this page and comparing with the EditPlus page, this page is quite robust and stands up well in comparison, except there are no references. Deleting a page over absence of references is a bit of a shallow dig. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whiteguru: Are you serious? Please read WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find reference wise about this was a single trivial source and the article is completely void of anything to help it be notable. So, I agree with the nominator that it fails both WP:GNG and the notability guidelines for software. I'm not sure what the keep voter is talking about with the whole "robustness of the page" thing, but we aren't talking about food or something here and 100% the article lacking any references matter if there's no other references out there to add to it. Which there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well, if there are no references to be found, than this article fails WP:GNG and as thus is not notable. "Robustness of the page" is not a reason to keep, in fact that makes the article worse since it is certainly entirely original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2020 (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.