Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpleText

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 speedy keep. I withdraw this nomination, the U-T San Diego source and other references now prove that this topic is notable according to policy. I only took a look at regular Google and Google News Archive, so my bad here. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleText

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

This article about an application for Apple computers appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. It was created in December 2001 by a registered user, when the notability requirements were much smaller and unregistered editors could still create new pages. I did, however, find a reliable source from CNET and U-T San Diego, see here and here, but that's not enough on the notability scale; all other sources available are self-published such as Wikia. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of references to this available via Google Books. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OMG, this is still a standard for computing today. Certainly notable and a good article can easily be constructed here. Insomesia (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people still use this program on slightly older Macintosh computers. This article is on a notable topic and there are plenty of reliable sources available. The example of the CNET download, referenced by the nominator above, is about a different program. Deleting the SimpleText and TeachText articles would be like deleting the articles for the Microsoft Windows programs WordPad and Notepad -- both programs of un-arguable notability. I'll add more references to this article soon. - ʈucoxn\^talk 03:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some reliable sources (diff1, diff2, diff3) to the article. This AfD can probably be non-admin closed, now. - ʈucoxn\^talk 21:38, 17 February 2013 (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.