Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadow (programming)

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 of the debate was Keep (No consensus).I think 2 relists is enough to establish we do not have consensus one way or the other. --++Lar: t/c 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contested prod. Reasons provided ere "non notable software, vandalized for a month" -- Drini 04:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. "with ADvantages Over Windows" hardly makes it unique. Dlyons493 Talk 11:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Vegaswikian says, at best a Merge into the language article. I've no objection to that being done. Dlyons493 Talk 16:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep A Google search for "Meadow" and "emacs" seems to indicate that it is quite popular among Japenese Windows users. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further consensus Computerjoe's talk 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per Ohnoitsjamie or merge into Emacs J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. No real reason to delete it, and well, almost all open source projects start small. Bryce 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the main Emacs article and add a one-line mention about this port in there. The article is really devoid of real information anyway. -- Hirudo 14:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This is a project to port a language, based on the article. At best this is a Merge into the language article. Vegaswikian 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <nitpick> It's a port of an editor, not a language </nitpick> -- Hirudo 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not just a port. What Meadows achieves is to extend the capabilities of emacs to make it suitable for use in complicated linguistic environments, such as the Japanese writing system, in which a literate user needs to be able to freely combine Kanji with two syllabaries: Hiragana and Katakana. --Lambiam^Talk 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whether or not its useful doesn't matter in my opinion as far as WP-ness. However, there is no verifiable info/sources or any claims of the usage of such an application (eg. do a lot of people use it?). Not every piece of potentially useful software gets its own article. Wickethewok 20:56, 3 June 2006 (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.