Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editix xml editor

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 redirect to List of XML editors. — Jake Wartenberg 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editix xml editor

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

Software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but delete all the XML Editor product page like Oxygen XML Editor, delete too this page List of XML editors. Sorry I disagree with your wishes, this is an information page about a product like other products, people may want to have information about a product too, you should remove macintosh, windows too because this is commercial activities ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo1972 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the fact that it is commercial isn't why I want it deleted. The software fails WP:N, our notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject". You have not shown this coverage exits, and I can't find it. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is nominated for deletion. I am surprised to see that Ironholds appears either not to have considered, or to have rejected, the possibility of a redirect to List of XML editors. Why is that, Ironholds?
Pending a response, I will go with the interim recommendation of redirect to List of XML editors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because quite honestly I didn't know the list existed. Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Would you agree it should be redirected rather than deleted?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its an acceptable outcome, but I can't see the article creator agreeing to it. He's edit warred repeatedly just over the AfD template. Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Thank you for your help Jo1972 (talk)

Changing my !vote to redirect and protect per Ironholds' latest remark.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability, redirect to a list does nothing helpful. If anyone would like to find information about it, it will find one in a list using search. --GreyCat (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite the article to make it neutral as it's written like an ad at the moment. There are several reviews of this software on Google News and it appears twice on Google Books which makes me think it's notable. See for instance [1], [2] and [3]. It's also on Apple.com althought I can't tell if it's self puslished or not: [4] Laurent (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The google news mentions are single mentions, failing to pass WP:N's muster, the first reference is a user-submitted comment, not a review and the second reference is too short to count under WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is self published except if you think they use Deutch, Spanish and French languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo1972 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 August 2009 (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.