Talk:RJ TextEd

promotional editing

Author of RJ TextEd allowed me to create an article on wikipedia proof link - http://www.rjsoftware.se/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=4843&sid=8f1e1883d49e7a028715a97b96154c4f#4843

There is no explicit release of the text under a free license. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote a product. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But wikipedia has a lot of articles about the text editor (PSPad, Notepad, AkelPad and others)? What is this convenient and freeware editor is worse? Is RJ TextEd not entitled to become a well-known (and therefore better because of the emergence of new users) because of Wikipedia? --User:Se7h (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia is not the place to become more well-known by advertising, it is only for established concepts that are already well known. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I only ask: why RJ TextEd can not have articles on Wikipedia? --Se7h (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted contents --Se7h (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can not show the Features of the program? --Se7h (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Article was edited and presented in the required form, please remove the tag COI --Se7h (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The links you've given so far, and your editing history demonstrate that your interest in this topic is promotional, rather than being neutral. TEDickey (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreation?

Most of the "references" are from download sites for the subject, and can hardly be considered WP:RS … see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ TextEd (2nd nomination) … must we have another WP:AfD? — 70.21.12.213 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it contains only the objective facts about the program, with proof-links. It is easy to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.112.0 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it contains only the objective facts about the program, with proof-links. It is easy to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7h (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the previous deletion discussion, objectivity wasn't the issue, notability was. That hasn't been addressed in any way by the current incarnation of the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I need help

Help me make the article better, it just so tiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7h (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... The program doesn't lack notability, but the article doesn't link to enough sources. This can be addressed. Here are a few links that should satisfy the notability requirement. Maybe someone could add them to the article.

PC Advisor lists "The five best downloads for programming" which includes RJ TextEd.

PC Advisor also has a review of the program here.) --161.52.160.134 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)