Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JavE (3rd 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JavE[edit]

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

The creator of this program kept a collection of reviews here. Most are offline; some wouldn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources independent of the subject; the only one I could look up is this German article from computing magazine c't. That is a good source, but it shares with all other references that it's old. Newer sources are extremely scarce, and I do not think the flurry of 2002 publications documented on the program's website (good luck to anybody trying to assess the quality of the offline ones!) suffices to establish notability in the absence of any significant coverage in the fourteen years since. Huon (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per our policies and guidelines, notability is not temporary, and there is no requirement that reliable sources be available online. The existence of coverage in indisputably reliable sources such as ORF, c't, Mac Power, and MacPeople establishes the subject's notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see what makes ORF, c't, Mac Power, and MacPeople better than trade journals. No indication that any of those reviews was substantial, they could have been short paragraphs long. Well, yes, [1] has several paragraphs but they are all short, and it just doesn't seem like substantial or quality overage. The fact that the coverage is old doesn't matter, but the fact that it seems low quality does. Delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 1 January 2017 (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.