Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex

NoTex

NoTex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable piece of software which doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Page creator has implied that they wish to use Wikipedia to advertise the product. I suspect they have a WP:COI based only on a gut feeling. Google test turns up nada and the only resources I can find on the product are first party and github. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: - Some discussion with the page creator after an initial CSD can be found here: Talk:NoTex#Contested deletion - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Not to add another nail in the coffin to the author's product but I really haven't found any third-party links despite numerous News searches. If the software is covered by at least one magazine, it may have the potential eventually but it's not notable at this time. I have no objection to userfying the article for future use. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - nonnotable product/advertisement TEDickey (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:N. Source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Contest

This article was marked for deletion based on a so called "Google test" .. I get the impression the test comments were not completely impartial:

+ Here is comment number (1):

Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So Ritchie333 admits that "NoTex" does at least *appear* actually on a google search; that at least my understanding from the first part if his sentence. Second part is actually not accurate:

• The search "notex editor" yield the project page of *NoTex* on position number 1;
• The search "notex text editor" does not yield anything meaningful; here Ritchie333 is actually correct. But the reason for that is that NoTEx is *not* a simple *text* editor, but a *reStructuredText* editor; so
• the corresponding search "restructuredtext editor" (even *without* the NoTex name in it) yield position number 4;
• and finally "restructuredtext editor notex" yield position number 1;

Based on the above facts, I contest that the *google test* for "NoTex" fails, and on the contrary it show that for the *interested audience* w.r.t. to "reStructuredText" NoTex is very relevant. Maybe the original first sentence in the article should have not been `NoTex is a text editor` but `NoTex is a reStructuredText editor`, which I've just corrected.

+ Here is comment number (2):

Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The admin gorgan_almighty (*what* a name) claims that it has no significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources.. well if you go and check for http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/links.html and search "NoTex" on the page then you'll find it! BTW docutils.sourceforge.net is maintained by the very *creator* of the *reStructuredText* markup and he apparently thinks that NoTex is actually relevant enough to be included on this page.

Look guys, I might not be a Wikipedia expert, and this was my first article and I hope to improve it in an *iterative* fashion; but when you come and immediately squabble around "strict inclusion criteria" without giving an article the time to improve and give the proper references, the **no** newcomer will write any new articles anymore. Till now I was a great fan of Wikipedia, but today I actually searched for the first time for "wikipedia sucks" and voila .. there was a lot, a LOT (!) of `significant coverage in reliable secondary sources`.

If you guys think care about Wikipedia, then it would probably help, to do actual research before flagging something and be a little bit more welcoming to newcomers; I can't claim that till now the reception was very warm. ....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsk81 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Google results are not an indication of notability, especially if targeted searching is used. The phrase 'google test' means simply googling the subject and browsing the first few results pages for anything resembing a WP:RS to indicate notability. If you arrived at the conclusion that I was searching simply for mentions of NoTex then I appologise.

Reliable secondary sources means something unconnected to the subject (i.e. it's in the creators interest to list editors for his markup language). An independant review is ideal in this case.

If the article does get deleted you can request it is 'userfied' where it is moved to you userspace for you to work on it. Once you think it's ready for article space you can request a review at WP:AFC and an impartial editor will review it resulting in it either being passed into article space or left on hold with some pointers in what needs done. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So would these links be considered impartial? NoTex.ch is obviously a Swiss/European centric site, but the reviews seem to be from Japan:

• http://www.moongift.jp/2012/09/20120925/ is an actual *review*
• http://b.hatena.ne.jp/entry/s/notex.ch/editor/ mentions NoTex, and many people (see lower part of site) seem to like it
• http://w3q.jp/r/7333 Another Japanese mentioning NoTex

Hsk81 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Another independent review:

• http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/6968223/
• http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.livedoor.com%2Farticle%2Fdetail%2F6968223%2F [just Google translation from Japanese to English of the previous link]

Hsk81 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)