This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 11:37, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- 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 delete. Consensus is that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Several "keep" comments do not address this WP:N issue, including those of Ohms law, Cyclopia and Quiddity; these opinions are given less weight in assessing consensus. Sandstein 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Leafpad
AfDs for this article:- Leafpad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (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)
- 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. :)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Actually, it can only show notability per an inclusionist's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 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)
- 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)
- Comment I indented the below discussion (until Ray's "Clear and obvious delete vote") to separate from votes. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:19, 27 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's not true. You're another editor assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 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)
- Note Joe Chill and I have resolved our differences in a discussion continued outside of AfD, therefore the above discussion between Joe Chill and myself should be ignored.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:29, 30 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)
- Delete - fails WP:N. Crafty (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Completely non-notable, no reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - It is included in a huge amount of Unix distributions, which makes a case for notability. All information is verifiable. It is quite normal for open source software to not be hugely reviewed by external articles, just because there is no need to do it, for the very nature of open source stuff. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we can get a ref (perhaps there already is one) that says that it is "included in a huge amount of Unix distributions", perhaps some claim like "it is the most popular Unix text editor", then that might be enough to claim notability. Currently there is no such claim. Also, if you can find another example of open source software that is not externally reviewed but is still considered to be notable, then that might provide a prior consensus to work on (or provide us with another article to delete). -M.Nelson (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- This deletion review and the corresponding AfD are a good startpoint, in my opinion. --Cyclpia - 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- About the included in Unix distributions, you can find the sources in the article. There are 12 different Unix distros listed, among those most mainstream Linux ones and all three main BSDs. --Cyclpia - 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Exists but isn't notable due to the lack of significant coverage. Just because stuff exists does not make it notable. Quantpole (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Cyclopia - purposefully-minimal programs (78k) tend to not get reviewed verbosely! Or Merge to LXDE. As well as simply appearing in many distributions, it is the primary text editor for LXDE, and the source for the primary text editor in Xfce (Mousepad (software), which was merged into Xfce). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Being included in Linux distros does not make something independently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of significant coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It might be helpful to also mull over the opt-in popcon statistics from Debian and Ubuntu for Leafpad and Mousepad (Mousepad being a fork of Leafpad) and comparing these with other popular text editors. Note that these are opt-in so the numbers can only be used relative to other numbers in these charts. The actual number of users will be much higher and this particular opt-in sample only covers these two Linux distributions.
Debian popcon: leafpad
Debian popcon: mousepad
Ubuntu popcon (note, long raw text table)
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)- That doesn't appear to be something we would track on Misplaced Pages in terms of determining notability. We need the non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Is this getting through to you at all yet? JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- The editor above provided exactly that. --Cyclpia - 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Machine generated statistics from the distributor do not determine notability. Miami33139 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, these are not "reliable third party publications". -M.Nelson (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Contrary to some of the shouting above by three editors who have taken to following me around, (isn't it interesting how vocal they became once I tried to improve this and some other articles currently at AfD?) these numbers are valid statistics that can be used in a relative manner. They are created by two independent 3rd parties which are completely separate from the subject at hand. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Note: indented by -M.Nelson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Toth, there has been no "shouting" above. The only time someone got a little riled up was JB with "Is this getting through to you at all yet?", where he is simply re-iterating his point. In their (and my) opinion, the sources listed are not "reliable third party publications"; just because they (strongly) disagree with your definition, it doesn't mean that they're getting un-civil. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Contrary to some of the shouting above by three editors who have taken to following me around, (isn't it interesting how vocal they became once I tried to improve this and some other articles currently at AfD?) these numbers are valid statistics that can be used in a relative manner. They are created by two independent 3rd parties which are completely separate from the subject at hand. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Note: indented by -M.Nelson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- The editor above provided exactly that. --Cyclpia - 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be something we would track on Misplaced Pages in terms of determining notability. We need the non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Is this getting through to you at all yet? JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No. Source code, and distributions aren't reliable sources. We need independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial context. Bfigura 04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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.