Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Editor (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 delete. Anas ^talk? 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor

Fails the basic definition of WP:N: no multiple, third-party, non-trivial sources, which for software programs generally is reviews, or bundling with notable software packages. Out of the three reviews linked to in the article itself, two aren't reviews at all – they're merely lists of technical specs, which doesn't establish notability. The other one (speedguide.net) doesn't seem to pass the non-trivial part of the definition. There are tons of download sites that host this file, but download sites don't establish notability because there are thousands of small programs that are mirrored all over the place. hbdragon88 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, whilst this is a good text editor (I use it most days), it is hard to see how it is notable, both from the article and web research (Google, etc). I am unsure quite how many text editors could ever be counted as notable. There are a huge number of text editors (many listed in Category:Windows text editors) with many having relatively little claim to notability (some are highly notable, like Edit (MS-DOS) and Notepad). If this article is deleted then most of the category should also be AfD candidates (note, I'm not saying that this is an argument to keep this article). --Mendors 00:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as seeming to lack non-trivial reliable indepedent published sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:38, 8 July 2007 (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.