Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad++

Notepad++

Notepad++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No claims of notability, no independent sources Corvus cornix 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; a Google search shows quite a few independent references. Many of the hits are blogs, but even so, that does help to show some level of notability in the Internet community, even if they are not reliable sources in and of themselves. And this post from a Microsoft developer might count as a reliable source. Most of these blogs do actually discuss Notepad++ rather than simply mention it in passing. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blogs are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but they do help to establish a level of notability. And I would argue that a blog hosted on the MSDN servers and written by Microsoft engineers could be considered a reliable source for Notepad-related subjects. *** Crotalus *** 21:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard it mentioned a lot by fellow programmers. Strong Keep. Corpx 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "I've heard of it" isn't a reliable source. Corvus cornix 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I've tried it myself and it isn't bad, but apart from this trivial PCMag blurb, I can't find reliable sources in English (there may be some in other languages). --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a Google News search even of just the past 30 days yields a result, and there seem to be a number of nontrivial mentions of the program outside of the official website. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you provide those? Otherwise it still does not claim notability... --Iamunknown 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: to claim that this editor lacks notability seems unjustified. Just some examples for its notability: it has very active forums on SourceForge with over 10,000 postings, and also an active mailing list with 336 subsscribers and close to 11,000 archived messages. Traffic to the project site is substantial: http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/graph/detail-graph.php?group_id=95717&ugn=notepad-plus&type=prweb&mode=week&graph=1 Several NotePad++plugins are being developed, numerous translations exist, documentation, a FAQ, even branded merchandise - in short, this is a popular open-source project with a substantial community of developers and users. Textor 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the software is downloaded about 250,000 times a month. --82.32.176.228 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please reread the nomination. Nowhere did I say "lacks notability". I said "no claims of notability". That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Corvus cornix 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as above, although it could use a cleanup Think outside the box 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Article needs cleaned up—not deleted. --Hamitr 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Reasons as above --Gunny01 08:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Notepad++ is used by some many people (there have been 3,882,680 downloads ) so it has great importance. Its article should be improved to reflect how good it is. There is no reason to delete the article. Some people even run it in wine as it is so good. The article is decent, and there IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER DELETING IT. User reviews of Notepad++ (every rating is 5/5 Corvus cornix's 4th edit was adding this AFD --Adam1213 Talk + 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I thought it was for a min, but I quickly realised that it was not and removed saying that having it put back has caused confusion. --Adam1213 Talk + 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, no it wasn't, have you even looked at Special:Contributions/Corvus_cornix? Probably not. Additionally, don't ask other editors to "save the article by voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad++" like you did at several editors' talk pages; this isn't the polls, this is a discussion to generate consensus. --Iamunknown 07:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain why you think this nomination was my fourth edit? Corvus cornix 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this software is used by a large number of people (check its official page, and forums). Also, notice that it's a GNU project as Wikipedia is. --Tasco 0 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How does that make it notable? --Iamunknown 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, there's a big difference between a GNU project and a project using the GNU FDL. On the topic of the deletion debate I'm inclined towards a keep vote, but the article certainly needs a lot of work both structurally and in terms of the citation of reliable sources. --Safalra 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Like Safalra said, the article needs work, but it should not be deleted since it's an notable text editor and used by many people.
• Looking at GNews, there are only a few news articles about how Notepad++ has a new vulnerability; Google search results don't turn up anything either (other than download sites). Since this is a purely online thing, I should imagine that, if it were notable, the program would be mentioned on ZDNet or other top tech news sites; it currently isn't. Doesn't appear to be notable to me, plus very few independent sources, so I'm leaning towards deleting it. --Iamunknown 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Article needs cleaned up, Notepad ++ is a great software --207.13.77.47 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - This is a significant piece of software, well worthy of a Wikipedia article. While most of the sites that speak of N++ are blogs and the numerous sites that offer it as a download, the number of them is a sign of importance. Take into account the number of downloads, the activity on the forums there, and all the ongoing work on the project and plug-ins, it would simply be odd to have no Wikipedia article on the subject. Killing it because all the "claims of notability" aren't good enough feels like a technicality. However, I would agree that the article needs some work. creativename | Matum u mok-aan! Matum u shara-hai agh golug-hai! 06:17, 16 May 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.