Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoffeeCup HTML Editor Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CoffeeCup_HTML_Editor

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCup HTML Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep Why does it fail that, @Clenpr:? If you don't expand any of these reasonings in your own words I will be NAC closing this group of nominations with the next couple days because I'm tired of these nominations you and others put forward where those voting are supposed to figure out why outside a WP: cite you're seeking deletion. And this is one of the more well-known consumer HTML editors; it will need sources but I'm not deleting without more information from you. Nathannah • 📮 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this subject is notable but I’m ok with the nomination’s terseness. If the subject is non-notable, what else would you say? “I looked and looked but found no refs” - that doesn’t add anything more. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Google Scholar indicates there are sources out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you provide at least a valid reference? Do you have references for all the page content? Clenpr (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m traveling or I would have added refs to the article. I’ll see if I can do that later this week. In the meantime, if you click the link I gave you, you’ll see what I mean. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Google Scholar results can be misleading - do we have sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To answer @Asilvering, there does appear to be sigcov available. There is at least decent amount of coverage of the software in a html "for dummies" type book: [1].

Further comment: @A. B. A reason that @Nathannah may be asking for more from the nominator in this case is due to rapid nomination of many articles for AfD by the same user. It's happened for software and songs and GI joe characters in the last few weeks which has led to some discussion about new guidelines for AfD over at the village pump: Wikipedia talk:Speedy_keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations. Given WP:NSOFT is an essay and not an official guidelines using it as the sole reason for nomination can also be considered invalidating.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, certainly a notable and citable piece of software. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2025 (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.