Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texmaker Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Texmaker

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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software - no sources to support notability. In fact no claim of notability is made. ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I done several searches for sources and have been unable to verify this software's notability. Cunard (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed vote to Keep. The sources found by Karnesky are enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Linux.com article multiple books. Nominator has made other AfDs on this subject. --Karnesky (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Linux article is an acceptable source, but the Google Books results are only passing mentions. If you can find one more source like the Linux one, I will change my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to wiki-lawyer, but WP:N states that multiple sources are preferred, but it does not say they are required. Further, this is not a vote. I'm adding the sources. The nomination of this article was too hasty. The most casual of searches would have found the linx.com article & should have been a red flag that the article could be improved or tagged for improvement, rather than deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very first book listed has five continuous pages on the subject & sporadic mentions throughout. This is hardly "only a passing mention." --Karnesky (talk) 21:25, 2 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) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at ISBN 9783540007180, as cited, and it in fact only covers this subject on pages 519–520, not pages 514–520 as claimed. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely the preferred stance should be to keep unless it is clear that there is no community and nobody is using it. From experience this is in fact the best LaTex editor available in Windows and the link is essential to building the community as Google does not find the download site. It is also established as part of several Linux releases - Ubuntu etc. So we would do the community a disservice by removing the article.ardalby —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: That's your personal opinion, but does not address notabiity. – ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This software may be niche since it is a document editor for TeX / LaTeX, but in that niche it is one of the more popular applications. The references I see are more than sufficient to establish notability, although this article is currently in horrible shape and should be rewritten and expanded. Tothwolf (talk) 23:24, 15 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.