Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xvi (text 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. Nakon 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xvi (text editor)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS or trivial and thus unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the author of the article clearly has a WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- I am unaware of any significant coverage such as required by the notability guideline. The sparse existing non-trivial (more than mentioning its existence) coverage overlooked by the author of the topic is dismissive as well TEDickey (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's any significant coverage of this text editor anywhere obvious. It's interesting how many irrelevant hits you can get for "xvi" "text editor" "stevie". I don't know how people can possibly tie together Stevie Ray Vaugn, Pope Benedict XVI, and text editors, but at least one person managed to do so. Anyway, it's already briefly described at Vi, so I don't think a merge is necessary. Given the few incoming links from other pages and the disambiguation, I don't think a redirect would be very helpful. However, it could be redirected to Vi#Contemporary derivatives and clones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A martinwguy at GitHub and a User:Martinwguy2 here is sub-optimal, the solution suggested by NinjaRobotPirate makes sense, let's keep a redirect. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly not an article. Optionally redirect, but its not well mown enough to be needed. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 2 April 2015 (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.