Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SemWare Editor
=[[The SemWare Editor]]=
:{{la|The SemWare Editor}} – (
:({{Find sources|The SemWare Editor}})
No reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Only one of the sources actually comments on the product and it's on a wiki site, edm2.com, where even the byline of the "review" changes from one revision to the next, rendering it useless for establishing notability. So far as I can tell from Googling, there are no other suitable sources available. Msnicki (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- added a couple of reviews in independent sources and removed the feature list, as much of it was generic text editor functionality. When I searched for SemWare, I actually got two hits in Journal of Clinical Microbiology for TSE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
::If you've added citations, I presume you have access to the articles? Is it possible you could scan them and post them, e.g., to a site like scribd.com so others can read them? Msnicki (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:::That's probably a copyright violation. I'd suggest checking http://www.kcls.org/databases/subject_categories.cfm#15 -- ProQuest might have them, or maybe General OneFile.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Is it possible you could email them to me, please? Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::{{Smallrejected|not allowed}}Although wikipedia can't give legal advice, I'd like to clarify that him showing you the document without you paying would be a violation of civil or criminal law(or both) depending on jurisdiction. i kan reed (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::The amplification of SarekOfVulcan's comment is misleading (the situation applies only to a case where someone would "manufacture" a copy). The owner of a copy is free to quote from it, for purposes such as this TEDickey (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this has been relisted, because SarekOfVulcan's words seem irrefutable. If there's some reason why additional supportive !votes are required, then mine is strong keep per SarekOfVulcan.—S Marshall T/C 17:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete.None of the sources appear to have in-depth coverage, but a paragraphs at most. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- Keep. There are some DOS era books with in-depth coverage of this (as QEDIT), e.g. [http://books.google.com/books?id=2YESiDi09bQC]. The overall number of shorter praises/mentions on top of that sway me to think is passes WP:GNG. The article needs some preening of the blatant advertisement and peacock terms though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::If the sources all talk about it as QEDIT in the DOS era, then maybe we should have that article, not this one. The article says the product was not only renamed, it was rewritten. This sounds like George Washington's original hatchet, the handle replaced three times and the head only once. Msnicki (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per SarekOfVulcan. A rewrite doesn't mean it became a different entity, it only means it got optimized. Many new versions of a program are rewritten for that reason and/or renamed for many different reasons. --DeVerm (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
: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.