Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLatexEditor

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 Comparison of TeX editors and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JLatexEditor

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

I found no reliable sources. All of the books in Google Books are copies of this article. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 18:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia and we have notability guidelines to uphold, I currently do not see this as passing WP:N, per nom. Joseph Steven (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Striking !vote by sock puppet of banned editor MooshiePorkFace --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect to Comparison of TeX editors Has an appearance of copyvio of [1], although presumably the same author wrote both. I scanned through 98 Google hits but found no independent discussions of the topic, so it fails WP:N; [2] is reliable as a primary source but shows nothing about notability. The softpedia is maybe relevant but is still listing version 0.1.32 when version 0.2 has been released since July 3, 2011. This topic appears to be an example of an article that would not be on Wikipedia had we had a one-source requirement. Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. An alpha of software does not merit a place in an encyclopedia. If it becomes notable and widely used, then but WP is not WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability is not a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects are cheap, and this software currently has a place in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion in the article that this is "pre-alpha" software is not confirmed given the 64 release versions listed here. Unscintillating (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (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.