Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseki (RDF server)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseki (RDF server)[edit]

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

deprecated open source software with no significant claim to fame Ysangkok (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, why is the fact that Joseki is now replaced by Fuseki a reason to delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To keep an article, you need to show that someone besides the people involved have noticed it. If nobody has demonstrated notability in six years, it is very unlikely that notability will someone be demonstrated now, after the software is no longer being developed. Perhaps one line could be added to the Jena (framework) article, which also needs help. A combined article with citations might be more likely to survive the next challenge, especially as this fades further into the past. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking 3rd party refs to establish notability; no indication of notability; search did not find any significant RS coverage. The fact that it is defunct is not in itself a reason to delete, but in conjunction with the lack of existing RS coverage, suggests that there will be no RS coverage in the future. Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (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.