Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad (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. —Kurykh 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EditPad

EditPad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:N: no multiple, third-party, non-trivial sources. A cursory Scroogle search [1] shows a ton of download sites, but no reviews, or magazine articles, or anything like tha requiredt. Download sites don't establish notability because thousands of downloads are hosted on various sites. The other AFD only listed on review [2] which does not meet the multiple threshold. hbdragon88 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Rackabello 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable little app. I have been using it for years. There are plenty of reviews on the web and on Magazine paper. Look for them and fix the page accordingly if you must. Editors' laziness to link reviews does not warrant a deletion. Instead of wasting peoples' time in this nomination try fixing the page.--LexCorp 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The onus is on those who want to keep it to provide those sources. hbdragon88 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of third-party reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like another promotion article. Significant amount of edits were done by anon users. I've read thousands of PC magazine articles, and I've never heard of this one. "Just Great Software, Inc. currently offers two editions of EditPad: Lite, which is freeware for non-commercial usage only; and Pro, a shareware product that costs 49.95 USD after a 30-day evaluation period". Eh hem. 49.95, eh? (Wikimachine 13:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
• comment other reviews listed on previous AfD; [3], [4], and [5]. 3 is more than one. :) I have no idea about if these sources passes WP:RS, ie. I don't know what editorial processes exists, which is why this is not a keep vote. Taemyr 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The first two links are just download centers. As I argued in the nom, those don't really establish notability. The third looks incredibly trivial, three paragraphs on a site that doesn't look like significant media coverage. hbdragon88 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This nomination is obvious forum-shopping. Relisting is less than 3 weeks after previous AfD, and no notification have been given to authors involved in the article.Taemyr 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that there was a time limit to renominating it. I am not renominating it on the exact same grounds. It clearly isn't advertising, for instance, but I definitely don't think it's notable. hbdragon88 22:32, 12 July 2007 (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.