Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:09, 26 September 2009 editChzz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users115,894 edits →Leafpad: Delete← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:47, 27 September 2009 edit undoTheserialcomma (talk \| contribs)3,804 edits dNext edit →
Line 37:		Line 37:

	* '''Delete''' After looking at the sources given and other potential ], I am unable to find ''significant'' coverage <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">]]</span></small> 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)		* '''Delete''' After looking at the sources given and other potential ], I am unable to find ''significant'' coverage <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">]]</span></small> 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
			* '''Delete''' non notable, fails ] and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete ] (]) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:47, 27 September 2009

Leafpad

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. This was deleted in AFD in 2007. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Pesonal opinions on notability aside, there's nothing in the article that isn't self-evidently verifiable. If article size (stub-ness) is a legitimate reason to delete articles then go ahead, otherwise I don't see what the problem is.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles need to be verified and notable. It has nothing to do with size. What you just said is your personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing though, everything in the current article is verified. Stating that either it is or is not notable is pure opinion. Regardless, I can already feel my back getting up about this, which is one reason why I generally don't participate in this process (along with the fact that it's fundamentally broken), so I feel that I have to say "good luck" and walk away now. :)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not pure opinion with many notability guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I've expanded the article and added references. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Solid references and nominator could not demonstrate compelling reasons for deletion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- A bunch of download sites doesn't show notability. If it did, every software could have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  - The references in the article that show just how many OS distributions include Leafpad link to the software package information (which includes things like the packages' ChangeLog, a list of software dependencies, known bugs, etc.) and are not "download sites". Claiming these are just "download sites" is a silly argument as these references clearly show Leafpad as being included and distributed with these operating system distributions. These are not links to independent 3rd party download sites such as Tucows or Download.com. That said however, even sites such as Tucows or Download.com can in some cases help establish notability, although in many cases a single link to a 3rd party download site would in and of itself probably not be enough. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    - Actually, it can only show notability per an inclusionist's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Joe, such comments and thinking are divisive and do not support community building or improvement of Misplaced Pages. Personally, I've never really aligned myself with either inclusionism or deletionism and find I tend to identify more with eventualism. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
        I will not read any essays. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources description:
A bunch of download sites.
One sentence on Mousepad.
A wiki called Fedora
A changelog
A paragraph in a book
None of these sources show notability. It looks like the keeps are just because they think that the software is useful. Joe Chill (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Joe, you need to stop these mass AfD nominations. I'm well aware of your past account and the history of what led you to begin mass nominating articles for deletion. Just because someone gave you a lot of grief over an article you wrote does not give you the right to mass nominate other articles in retaliation towards the entire community. This behaviour is disruptive to Misplaced Pages, continues to violate both WP:POINT and WP:PRESERVE, and it needs to stop. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  - That's not true. You're another editor assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    - Joe, aren't we all editors here? Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith#About good faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
      - You have no evidence. Don't state things like fact when you don't know. That is assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  - Would you like me to give you a list of editors that nominate a lot of articles for AFD so that you can assume bad faith towards them also? Or maybe a list of editors that usually !vote delete? Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    - I'm well aware of who regularly makes AfD nominations with regards to Computing and Software related topics. If you would like to discuss a less disruptive way of getting articles improved, I'd be happy to share a few non-obvious pointers that are more likely to result in an improved article. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Tuthwolf, I haven't done anything that violated any policies in AFDs. You said that I'm editing to make a point and editing in bad faith. After that, I'm not going to pay attention to you pointing me to WP:CIVIL. I will not discuss anything about how to deal with software articles with people that have opinions like yours. You were assuming bad faith no matter what you say. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Clear and obvious Delete Come on. Blatant failure of WP:N, which requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. None of these sources even begin to qualify. We have listings in packages and configuration manuals as our "sources." Are we going to have separate articles on ll, vims, and every other entry in the bin directory? Ray 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Ray (above). Though it has many references (all the info is verifiable), none of them estabilish notability.-M.Nelson (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete After looking at the sources given and other potential WP:RS, I am unable to find significant coverage Chzz ► 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete non notable, fails WP:N and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete Theserialcomma (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories: