Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Own 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 keep. The discussion provides several references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [1]. Sandstein 07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Own Editor

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not as notable as vi, but it's also not generally unknown. The Debian and Ubuntu popularity-contest opt-in statistics indicate that the joe packages are installed on over 17K machines and actively used on over 2K [2] [3] - and that's just what is measured via popcon. Also try using "joe editor" for findsources, the original expanded name is used as our article title simply because of disambiguation, in practice everyone simply calls it joe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make the article pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was citing popcon stats merely as an indication of general notability, not in reference to your claim of significant coverage. In any case, here's the other syntax for findsources, see if you can find relevant significant coverage in there: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I looked there and didn't find significant coverage. I don't understand why your !vote is keep. Joe Chill (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, conversely I don't understand why you can't see the coverage as significant when there are numerous references to it in a variety of topical items such as Unix- and Linux-related web sites and books (even if not all of them are detailed), and it's clear that the software is being widely distributed (through well-known Linux distributions) and has been for over a decade, ever since joe first rose to prominence. I've gone through the findsources searches and found plenty of references within a dozen clicks, so I fail to see a violation of the notability guidelines. In addition I find it bizarre that you would nominate joe for deletion based on WP:N, but at the same time ignore the linked jupp (editor) which seems less notable by a magnitude. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that it's bizarre that you want me to check the notability of everything that's linked in a software article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This discussion might not be helping the AFD. I'll just stop replying to this and see what others say. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Talk:Editor war#What about joe? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look to meet WP:N and the idea of wp describing every last piece of software in the world isn't attractive; of course, this could mean a pogrom for the myriad articles on non-notable text editors (e.g. nano, nedit, gobby etc). Lissajous (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I use 'nano' all the time. Quite the opposite of non-notable. --MarsRover (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given more than trivial coverage in dozens of books about linux, linked to above. "Significant" coverage does not mean exclusive coverage, although there are also some independent tech guides that are exclusive [4] --Karnesky (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How tos have never shown notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the dozens of books do. --Karnesky (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which they are tech guides. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please show me where in WP:RS that, e.g., O'reilly books are somehow below some threshold for WP:V and WP:N. --Karnesky (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm just going by what I've seen many times in discussions about notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The policy states the standard is being published in reliable third-party sources. If you would like to change policy or guidelines, this is not the place to do it. If you think a different policy or guideline applies here, please point to it precisely. --Karnesky (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There you go assuming bad faith again. I wasn't trying to change the guideline. Whenever I participated in software AFDs, that was usually the concensus. With how many times that I have seen it, it seemed like it was community concensus about software articles. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I never assumed bad faith on your part & I don't see how my statement could be misconstrued. If anything, I have the good faith that you would want to be more familiar with our policy. FWIW: I also participate in deletion discussions, but have never seen a kind of consensus against non-vanity technical books that you describe. I am interested in being pointed to such discussions, but doubt they are topical for this particular discussion. Feel free to ping my talk page or start a discussion at the village pump. --Karnesky (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked me if I had a conflict of interest and you posted wikilawyering in your edit summary. Also, I'm very familiar with notability guidelines (so familiar that I make most editors mad when I try to refute what they say). Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        People! I wish you could do as much work on the article as good as contributing comments to this AfD! :) Let's not pinch each other tit-for-tat more and not write a new comment below this one on this thread and focus on more constructive things :) Let's no "bindingly" agree to write at most one comment per !vote and a comment :) --Mokhov (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Joy, here is my explanation which you seem to have missed. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who do you think you are responding to? --Karnesky (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Joy. It was a test to see if she was paying attention to the entire discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I disagree. The standard of notability does not preclude third-party documentation, it precludes various forms of advertising. You can make the claim that people who write books or blogs about software have a vested interest in automatically advertising the same software, but then that's a horribly slippery slope. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not my belief. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete documentation does not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Minor but nontrivial player among unix text editors; Significant in the context of the unix command line as a command worth mentioning (see coverage in several unix books alongside emacs & vi, and an article on configuring it). Slightly ignoring the rules on this one, but with the justification that besides the vi-emacs wars, console unix text editors aren't the sexiest topic to write about. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sexiest is a funny way of putting it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you replying to every post in this thread? Do you have a COI? --Karnesky (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why there is people that think that if someone participates a lot in an AFD, they are editing in bad faith. Please assume good faith. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, "juiciest", whatever. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there is sufficient notability for the editor even if its pseudo namesake doesn't agree :-) Karnesky and I improved the article a bit, and even as stub as it is, it's keepworthy; this is a historical text editor (it's true, not the sexiest topic to write about). --Mokhov (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the book sources others have linked to above. This has coverage in a huge number of independent reliable publications, easily demonstrating notability. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from historical value, a common editor in the 1990s which made it into many early Unix/Linux distributions. Better known as 'joe', personally used it on at least three different Unix variants at school and work. There are references in online and offline media, the reason for this nomination is a mystery to me. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what annoys me the most in AFD: an editor that doesn't pay attention to the entire discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to point out that you did a sloppy research, provided no compelling arguments for deletion and now massively interfere with consensus building. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're just saying that because you disagree with me which is definately not civil. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disagreeing with you is not civil? :) Come one, you nominated one of the best known CLI text editors. Isn't it time to take back this nomination? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I said that the way you said it isn't. I couldn't withdraw even if I wanted too because of the deletes. Joe Chill (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Technically you still could state Withdrawn as a !vote, you just can't close the AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Schroder's book:
Schroder, Carla (2004-12-01). "Editing Text Files with JOE and Vim". Linux Cookbook (1st ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 68 –&#32, 77. ISBN 0-596-00640-3. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A popular unix-based editor and one that has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [5], [6], [7].--Michig (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was also able to find several sources just using Google, and the editor seems to have historical importance in the early days of Linux. I my opinion the article could do a better job of describing that, but that is hardly a reason for deletion.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going keep for this one - and this is pretty much a combination of the old software guidelines and WP:IAR. The only source we have for this is popcon (above) and the dev status - vitality, download hits (see, again, Debian's popcon utility), that sort of thing. Perhaps the religious wars over on usenet. The problem that we're going to run into here is that Free software - be it as in beer or freedom - won't get the same coverage as, say, Microsoft Word, or stuff like that. Face it, Wired Magazine is not going to do a review on this (and it's probably because their readers really don't care about a popular CLI editor under *nix). All this and more owes to my intentional ignorance of the rules - this is a notable piece of software, but the notability you find is really not convenient to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not seeing the notability here for this "popular" editor. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin, the above !vote by JBsupreme was made in retaliation for my comments at this DRV and several related AfDs. This is in direct conflict with the fact that this software has been covered in so many published works. [8] --Tothwolf (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage looks sufficient to me. Linux Magazine published an article about it. Dream Focus 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as the people above wrote "joe" was used as default editor in many Linux releases (e.g. Slackware). The fact that it is not used widely today is no reason for deletion (otherwise the article about MS-DOS must be deleted, too). However I would merge articles like Jupp (editor) to this article. Another idea would be the creation of a page "unix text editors" that will contain short descriptions of vi etc. and links to these Wikipedia articles as well as "full" descriptions of tools like "joe". Mr1278 (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable unix editor. I was surprised to see this one nominated for deletion. The name sounds silly but its not a personal project used by just "Joe". --MarsRover (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article of this venerable, notable and deeply respected Unix text editor. Crafty (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was my favorite editor back in my shell days. I'm not sure if the sources sited by others here would be considered "significant coverage" or not but from the ones a skimmed, I think it squeaks by. However, I'm not going to bold the word "keep" because at this point I don't think I could make anything other then an ILIKEIT or NOHARM argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (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.