Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAM editor

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAM editor[edit]

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

Contested prod. The refs supplied after the contested prod don't meet WP:RS and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude I'm still working on this article and your deleting i? I started work, upgrading it, less than a week ago, and now you have nominated it. scope_creep talk 22:57 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Sources are not independent: they all trace back to the software author, David Webber, or to NEIM, where Webber sits on the Technical Architecture Committee. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your evidence that the current sources all point to David Webber? What your saying can be merely conjecture. scope_creep talk 13:12 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources? Reference 1 is the sourceforge Wiki. History says written by [Drrwebber. Reference 2 is a power point presentation that indicates it is from a NIEM training event - as I said above, Webber is on NIEM's Technical Architecture Committee. Reference 3 is a Youtube video uploaded by Webber. Reference 4 is a NIEM blog with an 'about me' section that indicates the blog belongs to Webber. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant, independent, reliable coverage to establish notability. A search reveals blog posts, but no RS coverage. As above, several of the refs currently in the article are not independent as they were written by the software's author.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only open source XML editor which has been specifically designed to implement the Content Assembly Mechanism for use on the NIEM project, which is a USA wide, public sector project. It's a huge project. It is clearly notable!. Sure the sources are not fully independent, but a reading of the documentation associated with the product, show's that it is notable. It's a developer product. You're not going to get a ton of stuff on Google News. For MrOllie and Dialectric to show up, and say it's the sources are not notable, is a misreading of the information available.WP:RS are merely guidelines, not words written on a stone. To say that the product, doesn't warrant a page, when it so clearly does, is a fundamentalist viewpoint. It's worth a page. scope_creep talk 18:52 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the editor most forcefully recommending keeping the article openly admits that it hasn't received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If the topic is so "clearly notable", then clearly, it would have already obtained such coverage, and it clearly seems it hasn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 24 November 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.