Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarnal

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 no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnal[edit]

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

This article has been here since 2006 and still does not indicate how the software is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Portable Document Format under Annotating PDFs. This is a natural fit in that this is specifically what the program is known for, as shown by the following Google Scholar search [1]. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. I find this software worth of its own article. It's an open-source alternative for Windows Journal. That makes it notable. There is 3 other open-source programs available but two of them are for Linux only. Jarnal is cross-platform. In my opinion Jarnal is mainly a freehand sketching and notataking program that is best used with graphics tablet or tablet PC. Yes, it can also be used to annotate PDFs but that's only one side of it. I have tried to expand the article. It was my first contribution to Wikipedia. --J-p-fm (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) — J-p-fm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the cited review, the appearance in a few books, and the citation to the program in multiple articles from google scholar. Note that the search links have false positives, but adding 'java' or 'pdf' to the query will get better results. --Karnesky (talk) 01:50, 24 September 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.