Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pstoedit (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 keep. No consensus whatsoever for deleting this article. JForget 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pstoedit

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep already discussed in the first AfD.--Oneiros (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added one source and easily find three refs in books: [1], [2], [3]--Oneiros (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are all trivial mentions because tutorials don't show notability and the last AFD didn't go by the notabiliy guideline. And voting speedy keep because this is the seocond AFD is not a good reason to keep it. Multiple nominations are allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source is non-trivial, right? And the last AfD did go by notability: "Free software with no evidence of external notability."--Oneiros (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said that they are tivial and there is no evidence of external notability. The source in the AFD is trivial because it is just a database to search for software. In all of the software AFDs (A lot. Hundreds of AFDs including all topics is over a hundred) that I have participated in, tutorials were never considered significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the source in the AFD was significant coverage, you would need more than that. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm asking about the source I added to the article. And the argument from the last AfD still applies: Included in most Linux distros and BSDs.--Oneiros (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "And the argument from the last AfD still applies". Concensus can change over time and that has never shown notability for software (except when the rules were less strict). Read WP:CCC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to Keep per the numerous Google Books mentions and the German magazine article currently cited in the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 September 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.