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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The last AFD closed as no consensus because of users !voting keep because of two sentences. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I'm not usually a big fan of people renominating articles because they didn't get their way the first time. But I think in this case I agree with the nomination, and with the admin who closed the last AfD that the keep votes were "exceptionally weak". In my opinion the sources available are not sufficient. Reyk _YO! 03:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not against the rules to renominate articles when the result was no consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• who cares about some minor open sores software that does some minor function? I don't even care if it gets referenced. Notability means above average. Average software gets referenced, exceptional software is worth writing about. this is not exceptional, delete it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Comment Beyond the book already located, I found one more, Safaribooks - I havent cared to register an account to look in detail. Per WP:PRESERVE, have alternatives to deletion been considered, like merging the two lines of info into ResEdit or Resource fork or creating an overarching Mac application bundles or whatever the topic is about with a redirect. This would preserve the info and still not violate guidelines for what merits stand-alone articles. Incremental purging of articles of marginal notability is quite myopic and could lead to loss of info that, cumulatively, might be significant. I have no special interest in the topic, I dont know anything about it, I wont do the work, but again, I'm also not the one pushing for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • recipe books are not the type of coverage we care about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:17, 13 November 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.