Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cjdns (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. Clear consensus that the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cjdns[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously deleted with rationale "Mostly primary-sourced, one RS, no other evidence of notability.", which applies to the current version as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good sourcing can be found - this hasn't improved since last version - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: again may be WP:TOOSOON but article creator needs to be doing more and if COI/SPA then being open about it. Given what people say about the previous article there's a risk of sock here but I can see enough to see. The weird reference in the novel Battle Come Down - By Charlie Flowers - 978-1291888058. [1]. I've compared the article with [2] ... and have gone hmmm. The wording of the article is not optimal either. I'm actually scratching my head and wondering if this isn't plain dodgy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to nom and DJM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article subject is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2019 (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.