Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarnal (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Jarnal

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jarnal
• Articles for deletion/Jarnal (2nd nomination)

Jarnal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence nor claim of notability as a product. No third-party sources. Looking through the history, it's been this way since its creation in 2007 and PROD in 2009; no reasonable prospect it will be improved on its own. Very little in Google, nothing in GNews (which is all people named "Jarnal") and Wikipedia reprints in GBooks. David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete In addition to what David Gerard said, the whole thing is composed of primary sources – it doesn't seem to have actually been covered in-depth by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Squirrel (talk • contribs)
• Delete as an advertisement considering how specific it is, which is common of course, but it's not suggesting anything otherwise better because of if; the sources themselves are not substantial or significant enough to suggest better at all. Overall, because of this, advertising and no senses of notability are sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising and attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from Windows Journal right in the first sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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.