Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SlickEdit

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. Walton^talk 11:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlickEdit[edit]

No notability established, no reliable soruces and references provided. Vacuum Cleaner 01 10:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SlickEdit is marketed for almost two decades (released by MicroEdge in 1988 [1]). In 1997 it obtained an award from Dr. Dobb's [2] (at this time, the award may not have been totally worthless). It was one of few editors running on exotics as OS/2.

If the article is kept the note how complicated the user interface became should be definitely preserved, it is spot on. The red links should be unlinked and there could be more about history rather than detailed listing of features in the last release. The current categorisation is joke. Pavel Vozenilek 11:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & cleanup - This one actually has some established history. Let's get some better sources than self-references. I'm sure they're out there. /Blaxthos 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a google search for slickedit+review [3] with >97K ghits ~ Infrangible 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Right now the article is barely more than spam, but this is a venerable software /shareware package. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & cleanup. Recognized package with a large following and history. Just needs more info on both of these (especially history, of course). — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Highly notable program, just needs cleanup. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 06:38, 17 June 2007 (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.