Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poedit

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poedit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its still undergoing active with a fairly big community, so its not a dead project. I'll take a notability tag off it. scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating some more commentary. 'it exists and people use it' is not a particularly convincing keep argument unless sources are presented to back notability up...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Delete~~ - Looks like non-notable software; doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. The best I could find was only a passing mention, and even then the source is pretty questionable. Also mentioned in this questionable (reviewed?) conference paper. Suriname0 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned briefly in this book, but I couldn't view the actual page.

Okay, this actually looks close to me. I was able to find a short description in a peer reviewed conference paper here. One additional source of that quality would lead me to vote keep. Suriname0 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another passing mention in an a tech encyclopedia entry. And a paragraph in a book, which characterizes it as "one of the most popular programs available" to edit PO files. Based on this coverage, I'm shifting my vote to Keep, although none of this coverage is particularly impressive. Suriname0 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this nomination was started less than 120 seconds after a previous edit by the nominator. I'm not aware of a computer with the processing power to facilitate relevant WP:BEFORE checks in that time, but I'm happy to be educated. The nominator claims not to have been able to establish that the topic was the subject of significant coverage. It's hard to establish something if you don't try. The sources above are more than enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just looking through google books, I think there is enough RS to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References
References

Keep, enough book references for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (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.