Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Editor (3rd 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 keep. John254 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor

This article was deleted via it's second AFD, but that deletion was overturned for lack of participation at this deletion review. It is relisted here for further consideration. (It was also recreated and speedied between the 2nd AFD and the DRV, but that has no bearing on this discussion.) I have no opinion. Chaser - T 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep view - I have cleaned it up and produced a better sourced version. A rather specialist application but notable within its field. Bridgeplayer 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The revised version makes it borderline notable and probably just scrapes past WP:V and WP:RS, but still needs cleanup and additional sources. Dbromage [Talk] 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assert notability or delete - The article itself doesn't assert notability (from what I see). If Bridgeplayer isn't lying, then it should be improved. If it isn't improved to assert notability, delete. Giggy ^Talk 05:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — I'm not sure about this, but instinct is telling me to keep. The article appears to be sourced. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the third or fourth time i've seen this at AfD or DRV and everytime I see it I think it's an article about the editor of The Harvard Crimson. --JayHenry 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be a few reliable sources around to assert notability, although the article needs a lot of work as it barely asserts that notability right now. —gorgan_almighty 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason for deletion is just not strong enough and there was very few people supporting it in the second nomination. --minghong 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no real reason to delete the article. From a professional point of view, i can tell that Crimson Editor is very familiar to many programmers and therefor notable, however, this would need to be referenced. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are enough sources for me. Bryan Derksen 03:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep --SkyWalker 06:11, 24 August 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.