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

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. merge discussion can take place elsewhere Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD. The recently added references are not sufficient to demonstrate notability (they are not even close to significant coverage). Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Similar information provided in wikis like Texmaker, TeXnicCenter, WinEdt and LaTeX-Editor (LEd). Do they all have independent sources? Delete them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.113.165 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Other stuff exists is not a helpful argument in deletion discussions, but as you have raised it, yes, if those articles don't meet the inclusion criteria they should be deleted. In fact I will take a look at them right now. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you trying to make a WP:POINT? --Karnesky (talk)

• Comment: No not at all, that is not my style. I am just trying to weed out articles that don't meet the GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. I appreciate your efforts at improving Wikipedia. With that goal in mind, can you please try to not even give the possible impression of WP:POINT? After making this particular AfD, you have nominated every other article that has been linked in this discussion for deletion. While your direct purpose may not be to disrupt Wikipedia, I think that may be an unintentional side effect. It takes time and effort to find sources and improve articles & deletion discussions tend to be short lived. By making this shotgun nomination (without a centralized discussion), I fear that many articles will be deleted before we have a chance to improve them. Please be a little less hasty in marking so many articles for deletion & pitch in to see how they can be improved and/or at least ask others to improve them. --Karnesky (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore notability not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Dawn Bard (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given mention in several sources, per their webpage. These should be added to the article. Also note that, procedurally, multiple PRODs are bad. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All the sources are LaTeX how-to guides. And the list clearly says "articles and books which mention WinShell". Notability requires more than mentions. Hairhorn (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the dutch article, WinShell takes up 1 of the 4 pages. It gets a whole page or more in Kopka & Daly's book too & is (with WinEdt) one of only two editors they recommend for Windows. I don't have access to the german/japanese books/video. The "mention" is more than incidental in more than one source. --Karnesky (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be exclusive coverage on this in TUGboat. --Karnesky (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was flagged for rescue at approximately this point in the discussion by Drawn Some.

• Weak keep per Karnesky's sources. Not familiar with the Dutch or German languages, and reasonably sure the mentions in the larger books are going to be minor, it's difficult for me to agree to definitely keep. An alternative idea I have would be to merge to a list article of similar software per WP:FAILN or to an overall company article per WP:PRODUCT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. coverage in at least six books and part of TeXLive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.194.34.103 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that at least one of the book sources in there appear to be sourced to Wikipedia (such as this one). Furthermore, could you please confirm that the coverage in those six books is substantial? I kind of doubt it at a glance, and ghits alone are not an indicator of notability (or lack thereof). And also, being part of TeX Live doesn't make it notable; if anything, that's an argument to merge to TeX Live. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The multiple sources in the article are not sourced to Wikipedia and have more substantial coverage (all have at least a page). I find no evidence that this is actually part of TeX Live & don't think it should be merged there. --Karnesky (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was talking about a very specific reference (see the link above), which I'm almost certain is sourced to Wikipeida (note the "[WP]" following the entry on WinShell). I didn't take a close look at the other refs because I don't see a point in attempting to interpret how substantial coverage is in a language I can't understand. And if it isn't part of TeX Live, then it shouldn't be merged there. But per WP:PRODUCT it might merit merging (perhaps with WinGeno) somewhere. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And in fact, should this close as keep, no consensus, etc. I think it would be a good idea to at least discuss a merge with WinGeno to a general article on Ingo de Boer or a development team involved in making the software. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • [edit conflict] Yes. I was clarifying that this article now includes multiple independent non-trivial sources. (The particular book you referred to seems to be a machine-generated book of "quotes" about "latexes" (and not LaTeX in particular). It would be a useless source even if it was not sourced from WP.) Neither WinGeno nor the developer seem to be as notable as WinShell. If we want to seriously consider a merge, perhaps we should make a consolidated discussion. But I'd want to keep WinShell & delete WinGeno. --Karnesky (talk) 17:12, 3 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.