Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaTeX-Editor (LEd)

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. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX-Editor (LEd)

Insufficient references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability . ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural keep~~ because I believe this nomination was made to make a WP:POINT. Due to the very common name, it is difficult for me to isolate sources for this quickly. I may not be opposed to deletion in the future, but I think that it is best to discuss possible deletion when heads are cooler. --Karnesky (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I resent your repeated accusations that I am being pointy - whatever happened to assuming good faith? Check my contribution history - pointiness is not my thing. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that you took it personally. This is only the second mention of WP:POINT I made, despite your numerous recent AfDs. I did look at your edit history & it is actually the quantity and timing of your AfDs that prompted my remarks. If you made an honest effort at investigating all of those articles, I applaud you. I just find it surprising that anyone could have made an honest effort of searching for sources or truly considering whether an article might be improved in such a short timespan. At the very least, your nomination for Texmaker was certainly a mistake: mere seconds of searching would yield multiple notable sources instantly. Please withdraw that nomination & consider trying to work a little harder at avoiding such mistakes & on making actual improvements to stubs and articles. --Karnesky (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a mistake or being sloppy about checking for sources (and I'm making no comment on whether Ukexpat did that or not) may be bad, but it hardly seems to qualify as "disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point". Anyway the worst-case scenario is that it's deleted and userfied until you do get time to find sources and put it back in mainspace - certainly not worth getting into an argument about! Olaf Davis (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have not convinced me that this accurate, informational page ought to be deleted. Wikipedia is not paper, having this article does not detract from others. If being unsure of notability is the only reason, we should not delete, we should improve the article. —fudoreaper (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Appropriate reliable sources do seem to be a bit hard to come by[1][2], perhaps a more appropriate place for the information contained in this article would be at LaTeX.Synchronism (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I have been unable to find WP:RS for this product. I disagree with the shotgun nomination of a half dozen articles based on a comment in an AfD; the other articles are all sourced now & should be kept. (Ironically, the only article that has had not had sources added has been the only one to be kept, while the others have been relisted.) This single article seems to warrant deletion (without prejudice if a source can be added). --Karnesky (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, merge and redirect to LaTeX. The above users are correct that this software is not notable, and hence should not be an article in its own right; but since the material is verifiable it would surely be appropriate to preserve the sourced content somewhere else on Wikipedia. The main LaTeX article seems to be the appropriate place.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What content has been sourced using WP:RS? Why should we discuss a non-notable editor in LaTeX? --Karnesky (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To answer each question in turn, Karnesky: 1) Nobody's denying that this software exists, and 2) Non-notability is a reason not to have a separate article, but in itself, it isn't a reason to cut material out of Wikipedia in violation of WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy which those fixated on the notability guideline sometimes fail to implement).
    In other words, WP:PRESERVE as presently drafted requires us to consider retaining a footnote or sub-subsection in some article (arguably LaTeX) mentioning this software.
    I would personally argue that WP:PRESERVE should be updated. My view is that WP:PRESERVE should apply only to reliably-sourced content, particularly in the case of BLPs. But at the moment it does not say that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a rather unconventional reading of WP:PRESERVE: the mere existence of a LaTeX editor would not belong in a finished article on LaTeX because WP is not a directory. There are scores of such editors & there's no way or reason to include them all. If the mere existence of something compelled us to mention it "somewhere," there'd be little reason to have AfD in the first place: most would result in a merge. --Karnesky (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm rather perplexed by how each individual tool from each supplier in one industry can be thought to be notable, but similar such specific articles about tools used in other industries (e.g. 14mm Stanley spanner [that's "9/16" Stanley wrench" to you Americans]) would be deleted without question, even though they are probably much more widely used. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support an article about a wrench, or a stapler, so don't say that we're all fixated on software articles, and nothing else. Just a lot of people on Wikipedia are computer geeks, so these articles get attention, and articles on woodworking do not. I hope this changes. Also, in Canada we call it a wrench, never realized a spanner was the same. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2009 (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.