Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedily deleted by Deb (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NoTex

NoTex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable piece of software which doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Page creator has implied that they wish to use Wikipedia to advertise the product. I suspect they have a WP:COI based only on a gut feeling. Google test turns up nada and the only resources I can find on the product are first party and github. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contest

This article was marked for deletion based on a so called "Google test" .. I get the impression the test comments were not completely impartial:

+ Here is comment number (1):

Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So Ritchie333 admits that "NoTex" does at least *appear* actually on a google search; that at least my understanding from the first part if his sentence. Second part is actually not accurate:

  • The search "notex editor" yield the project page of *NoTex* on position number 1;
  • The search "notex text editor" does not yield anything meaningful; here Ritchie333 is actually correct. But the reason for that is that NoTEx is *not* a simple *text* editor, but a *reStructuredText* editor; so
  • the corresponding search "restructuredtext editor" (even *without* the NoTex name in it) yield position number 4;
  • and finally "restructuredtext editor notex" yield position number 1;

Based on the above facts, I contest that the *google test* for "NoTex" fails, and on the contrary it show that for the *interested audience* w.r.t. to "reStructuredText" NoTex is very relevant. Maybe the original first sentence in the article should have not been `NoTex is a text editor` but `NoTex is a reStructuredText editor`, which I've just corrected.

+ Here is comment number (2):

Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The admin gorgan_almighty (*what* a name) claims that it has no significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources.. well if you go and check for http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/links.html and search "NoTex" on the page then you'll find it! BTW docutils.sourceforge.net is maintained by the very *creator* of the *reStructuredText* markup and he apparently thinks that NoTex is actually relevant enough to be included on this page.

Look guys, I might not be a Wikipedia expert, and this was my first article and I hope to improve it in an *iterative* fashion; but when you come and immediately squabble around "strict inclusion criteria" without giving an article the time to improve and give the proper references, the **no** newcomer will write any new articles anymore. Till now I was a great fan of Wikipedia, but today I actually searched for the first time for "wikipedia sucks" and voila .. there was a lot, a LOT (!) of `significant coverage in reliable secondary sources`.

If you guys think care about Wikipedia, then it would probably help, to do actual research before flagging something and be a little bit more welcoming to newcomers; I can't claim that till now the reception was very warm. ....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsk81 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Google results are not an indication of notability, especially if targeted searching is used. The phrase 'google test' means simply googling the subject and browsing the first few results pages for anything resembing a WP:RS to indicate notability. If you arrived at the conclusion that I was searching simply for mentions of NoTex then I appologise.
Reliable secondary sources means something unconnected to the subject (i.e. it's in the creators interest to list editors for his markup language). An independant review is ideal in this case.
If the article does get deleted you can request it is 'userfied' where it is moved to you userspace for you to work on it. Once you think it's ready for article space you can request a review at WP:AFC and an impartial editor will review it resulting in it either being passed into article space or left on hold with some pointers in what needs done. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would these links be considered impartial? NoTex.ch is obviously a Swiss/European centric site, but the reviews seem to be from Japan:

Hsk81 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another independent review:

Hsk81 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Hsk81. The reality of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria often takes a lot of new editors by surprise, and many react the way you have. I'm really sorry that you feel you've been discriminated against, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has strict inclusion criteria for a reason. Wikipedia cannot simply be a collection of anything and everything that can be proved to exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such has a certain notability bar that subjects must achieve before they are considered to be notable enough for inclusion. Additionally, Wikipedia has very specific guidelines on how to access that notability. I request that you thoroughly read the following articles: The General Notability Guideline, Independent Sources, Reliable Sources, Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. NoTex looks like a good piece of software, and I have seen similar software rise in popularity and use, receive reviews by several independent reliable sources, and end up with an article on Wikipedia. That may happen to NoTex eventually, but it has not happened yet. As user Cabe6403 says, the article can be 'userfied' to your own user space so that you can continue editing it there, and possibly restore it one day if and when it is suitably notable. In order to help you out I have already userfied it for you, and you may find the userfied version here: User:Hsk81/NoTex. Good luck with the future. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could anybody give a reaction to the reviews I provided? Are these considered ok, or not-ok?

Hsk81 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatena is a social bookmarking site and is therefore all inclusive and lacking in any reliable editorial oversight, so definitely not. Livedoor is an ISP and its news feeds don't appear to be attributed to any reliable news source, so no. The purpose of W3Q and Moongift is hard to identify, but neither of them appear to have their own Wikipedia articles so are unlikely to be considered reliable sources. Sorry. Did you read the articles I pointed you to? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that Hsk81 takes a read over the conflict of interest policy since I've noticed that NoTex is hosted under the same username at Github. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have with a lot of software articles is that they're well known in niche circles without ever appearing in major news outlets. Unfortunately, that makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia, as we only cover what the world at large has reported. The way to get around this, as reStructuredText as done itself, is to get it mentioned in reliable sources first, then create the article.

Taking Hsk81's comments on board, I tried "restructuredtext editor notex" and it brought up a Stackoverflow page (self published, unsuitable), the project page (a primary source), a SourceForge link (both primary and self published), the Wikipedia page for reStructuredtext (Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles), a blog (self published), two github pages (self published), a blog (self published) and a YouTube video (generally self published). None of these sources are reliable. You need significant coverage in major news outlets like cNet or TechCrunch - if you don't have those then the product just isn't well known enough to be included here. reStructuredText survives on a mere handful of references - principally David Mertz's article in IBM developerWorks, but I notice even that has had discussions about notability, and at one point here was tagged as such, and could have been sent to AfD at any time.

Incidentally, I would reiterate that I merely said I couldn't find sources, not that nobody could. I can't juggle either, but I don't see people lambasting me for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, I would invite people to read point 15 in WP:OWB and the userbox 6 from the bottom on my user page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NoTex&oldid=1082623255"