- 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 no consensus. henrik•talk 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FirstPage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage for this HTML editor. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I actually use this editor myself. It has been around for years, free to use and widely publicised in computing and website creation magazines. If you look at the Google book search it will give you a sample of reviews and recommendations. Evidently it would be a sensible idea to add some sources to the article. Sionk (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia also has to be useful. I think that availability of a tool on a download site like c|net with favorable end user opinions should be enough to at least keep it on a list of HTML editors, and that a short article like the one we currently have is also useful. We have much more obscure pieces of software here, and I think we should. (BTW, I am using it and it is quite good, but this is "original research" (o: ) --bonzi (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also used this quite a lot, but in the absence of evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. The Peter Christian source ([1]) was the most significant coverage I could find. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete be it useful or not, it is non-notable as determined per WP:N and WP:NSOFT, and removal of this software will definitely not render Wikipedia useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— confer 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge with List of HTML editors on the strength of the books referenced in the article. It's debatable whether any of these constitute significant coverage alone, but I think that combined they do. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (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.
- Keep/merge I agree with Cerebellum. Eiad77 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]