The result was speedily deleted by Deb (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC) reply
None notable piece of software which doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Page creator has implied that they wish to use Wikipedia to advertise the product. I suspect they have a WP:COI based only on a gut feeling. Google test turns up nada and the only resources I can find on the product are first party and github. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was marked for deletion based on a so called "Google test" .. I get the impression the test comments were not completely impartial:
+ Here is comment number (1):
Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
So Ritchie333 admits that "NoTex" does at least *appear* actually on a google search; that at least my understanding from the first part if his sentence. Second part is actually not accurate:
Based on the above facts, I contest that the *google test* for "NoTex" fails, and on the contrary it show that for the *interested audience* w.r.t. to "reStructuredText" NoTex is very relevant. Maybe the original first sentence in the article should have not been `NoTex is a text editor` but `NoTex is a reStructuredText editor`, which I've just corrected.
+ Here is comment number (2):
Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The admin gorgan_almighty (*what* a name) claims that it has no significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources.. well if you go and check for http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/links.html and search "NoTex" on the page then you'll find it! BTW docutils.sourceforge.net is maintained by the very *creator* of the *reStructuredText* markup and he apparently thinks that NoTex is actually relevant enough to be included on this page.
Look guys, I might not be a Wikipedia expert, and this was my first article and I hope to improve it in an *iterative* fashion; but when you come and immediately squabble around "strict inclusion criteria" without giving an article the time to improve and give the proper references, the **no** newcomer will write any new articles anymore. Till now I was a great fan of Wikipedia, but today I actually searched for the first time for "wikipedia sucks" and voila .. there was a lot, a LOT (!) of `significant coverage in reliable secondary sources`.
If you guys think care about Wikipedia, then it would probably help, to do actual research before flagging something and be a little bit more welcoming to newcomers; I can't claim that till now the reception was very warm. ....
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsk81 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
So would these links be considered impartial? NoTex.ch is obviously a Swiss/European centric site, but the reviews seem to be from Japan:
Hsk81 ( talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Another independent review:
Hsk81 ( talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Hsk81 ( talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The problem we have with a lot of software articles is that they're well known in niche circles without ever appearing in major news outlets. Unfortunately, that makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia, as we only cover what the world at large has reported. The way to get around this, as reStructuredText as done itself, is to get it mentioned in reliable sources first, then create the article.
Taking Hsk81's comments on board, I tried "restructuredtext editor notex" and it brought up a Stackoverflow page ( self published, unsuitable), the project page (a primary source), a SourceForge link (both primary and self published), the Wikipedia page for reStructuredtext (Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles), a blog (self published), two github pages (self published), a blog (self published) and a YouTube video (generally self published). None of these sources are reliable. You need significant coverage in major news outlets like cNet or TechCrunch - if you don't have those then the product just isn't well known enough to be included here. reStructuredText survives on a mere handful of references - principally David Mertz's article in IBM developerWorks, but I notice even that has had discussions about notability, and at one point here was tagged as such, and could have been sent to AfD at any time.
Incidentally, I would reiterate that I merely said I couldn't find sources, not that nobody could. I can't juggle either, but I don't see people lambasting me for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
To conclude, I would invite people to read point 15 in WP:OWB and the userbox 6 from the bottom on my user page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Deb (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC) reply
None notable piece of software which doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Page creator has implied that they wish to use Wikipedia to advertise the product. I suspect they have a WP:COI based only on a gut feeling. Google test turns up nada and the only resources I can find on the product are first party and github. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
This article was marked for deletion based on a so called "Google test" .. I get the impression the test comments were not completely impartial:
+ Here is comment number (1):
Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
So Ritchie333 admits that "NoTex" does at least *appear* actually on a google search; that at least my understanding from the first part if his sentence. Second part is actually not accurate:
Based on the above facts, I contest that the *google test* for "NoTex" fails, and on the contrary it show that for the *interested audience* w.r.t. to "reStructuredText" NoTex is very relevant. Maybe the original first sentence in the article should have not been `NoTex is a text editor` but `NoTex is a reStructuredText editor`, which I've just corrected.
+ Here is comment number (2):
Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The admin gorgan_almighty (*what* a name) claims that it has no significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources.. well if you go and check for http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/links.html and search "NoTex" on the page then you'll find it! BTW docutils.sourceforge.net is maintained by the very *creator* of the *reStructuredText* markup and he apparently thinks that NoTex is actually relevant enough to be included on this page.
Look guys, I might not be a Wikipedia expert, and this was my first article and I hope to improve it in an *iterative* fashion; but when you come and immediately squabble around "strict inclusion criteria" without giving an article the time to improve and give the proper references, the **no** newcomer will write any new articles anymore. Till now I was a great fan of Wikipedia, but today I actually searched for the first time for "wikipedia sucks" and voila .. there was a lot, a LOT (!) of `significant coverage in reliable secondary sources`.
If you guys think care about Wikipedia, then it would probably help, to do actual research before flagging something and be a little bit more welcoming to newcomers; I can't claim that till now the reception was very warm. ....
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsk81 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
So would these links be considered impartial? NoTex.ch is obviously a Swiss/European centric site, but the reviews seem to be from Japan:
Hsk81 ( talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Another independent review:
Hsk81 ( talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Hsk81 ( talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The problem we have with a lot of software articles is that they're well known in niche circles without ever appearing in major news outlets. Unfortunately, that makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia, as we only cover what the world at large has reported. The way to get around this, as reStructuredText as done itself, is to get it mentioned in reliable sources first, then create the article.
Taking Hsk81's comments on board, I tried "restructuredtext editor notex" and it brought up a Stackoverflow page ( self published, unsuitable), the project page (a primary source), a SourceForge link (both primary and self published), the Wikipedia page for reStructuredtext (Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles), a blog (self published), two github pages (self published), a blog (self published) and a YouTube video (generally self published). None of these sources are reliable. You need significant coverage in major news outlets like cNet or TechCrunch - if you don't have those then the product just isn't well known enough to be included here. reStructuredText survives on a mere handful of references - principally David Mertz's article in IBM developerWorks, but I notice even that has had discussions about notability, and at one point here was tagged as such, and could have been sent to AfD at any time.
Incidentally, I would reiterate that I merely said I couldn't find sources, not that nobody could. I can't juggle either, but I don't see people lambasting me for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
To conclude, I would invite people to read point 15 in WP:OWB and the userbox 6 from the bottom on my user page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply