Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad++ (2nd nomination)

Notepad++

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

DELETE. While I can't speak to the rules for inclusion 2 years ago (most comments border on ILIKEIT or ITS USEFUL) I can say that there isn't anything in the way of meaningful or non-trivial coverage of this software application from reliable third party sources. Plus the name is a complete ripoff of Notepad, ouch. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One of the most popular Windows editor. I think deleting could make it to Slashdot and Digg, Redit front page. Actually I encourage everyone to do like deletionists do and say delete (without giving any clear reasoning). Let's make a point how absurd mass nomination of software articles is and that this cannibalises Wikipedia. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of google news and books results. Won a sourceforge community choice award for best developer tool [1], was noted by PC Magazine as one of the top 157 gratis software tools. --Karnesky (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per already-demonstrated notability. "ripoff of notepad" is hardly a rationale for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no evidence that consensus of prior AfD has changed. Lots of articles, found in 30 seconds, e.g.: [2], [3], etc. --Milowent (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that there isn't anything in the way of meaningful or non-trivial coverage of this software application from reliable third party sources. — Saying it doesn't make it true, though. And as Milowent points out, it's not particularly hard to find them. I turned up Gilmore for example in under 1 minute. It's hard to reconcile how easy this is with the statement in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]