Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad++ (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 speedy keep. Enigma^msg 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++

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

DELETE. While I can't speak to the rules for inclusion 2 years ago (most comments border on ILIKEIT or ITS USEFUL) I can say that there isn't anything in the way of meaningful or non-trivial coverage of this software application from reliable third party sources. Plus the name is a complete ripoff of Notepad, ouch. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One of the most popular Windows editor. I think deleting could make it to Slashdot and Digg, Redit front page. Actually I encourage everyone to do like deletionists do and say delete (without giving any clear reasoning). Let's make a point how absurd mass nomination of software articles is and that this cannibalises Wikipedia. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; but is that what this slew of IRC related AfDs is? I have been scratching my head until i found the discussion on the admin noticeboard here. --Milowent (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of google news and books results. Won a sourceforge community choice award for best developer tool [1], was noted by PC Magazine as one of the top 157 gratis software tools. --Karnesky (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per already-demonstrated notability. "ripoff of notepad" is hardly a rationale for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no evidence that consensus of prior AfD has changed. Lots of articles, found in 30 seconds, e.g.: [2], [3], etc. --Milowent (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that there isn't anything in the way of meaningful or non-trivial coverage of this software application from reliable third party sources. — Saying it doesn't make it true, though. And as Milowent points out, it's not particularly hard to find them. I turned up Gilmore for example in under 1 minute. It's hard to reconcile how easy this is with the statement in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep Adequate sources, But apparently there is a view think that looking for sources are irrelevant, and articles can be deleted as unsourced whether there are sources to be found or not. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 1 October 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.