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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lapis (text editor)[edit]

Lapis (text editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

ProD removed by author, so here we are. Text editing software that doesn't assert notability or show significant coverage in third-party sources. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, isn't scientific publishing considered significant third party coverage any longer? I've added more sources, and notability could be inferred by reading them. But I will spell it out in the article if that's necessary to avoid speedy deletion processes. Lapis is an algorithm for information extraction with outline detection, and end-user programming. Text editor doesn't make it justice Diego (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources given, the doctoral thesis doesn't satisfy WP:N as the paper is a first-party source (being written by the software's creators), and the other sources are abstracts with passing mentions to Lapis, none are significant coverage. Generally, a software program needs to be significantly covered by other authors, not its creator. Additionally, the article doesn't assert why the program is different than other text editors. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least [1] does more than a passing mention of Lapis: it devotes two whole chapters to it.
Aditionally, WP:N doesn't require that the article asserts its notability; it does call for editors to research for it, specially if appropriate sources (such as linked scientific articles) can probably be found. (This is quite reasonable, as it allows stubs to survive the impulses of deletionists and grow into real articles). Deletion should be a last resort, so according to the guideline you should have used the ((notability)) tag instead of the delete one. Diego (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think that this application is big in computer science academia, but hasn't received the wider coverage required for a Wikipedia Article. The notability guideline operates off actual sources or sources confirmed to exist that are not online, not ones that might exist or are speculated. WP:N requires multiple examples of significant third-party coverage, I went back through the sources on the article itself, two are primary, and the remainders are abstracts. Even with the source you came up with, a few more long form mentions like that are needed to satisfy WP:N. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could expand (and rename) the article to include other similar projects in PbE for multiple selection and/or automatic editing. This would give more ample coverage and many relevant published papers on the topic.Diego (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea, especially since PbE as a concept seems to be very well covered. Let me know if I can help. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to work on this at some point this weekend. Diego (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 13 July 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.
More