Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JavE (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 no consensus. No valid rationale for deletion presented. Being recreated but not improved is a reason to improve. Psychonaut pointed to sources and even ViperSnake151 says the article is allowable - but barely. I do not see a consensus to delete. v/r - T P 02:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic was re-created without making improvements to it for close to a year. There are no sources (primary or secondary), no reason given in the topic to indicate notability. TEDickey (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources establishing notability (articles in Mac Power, MacPeople, and possibly also c't; plus coverage on Austrian national radio) were already mentioned on the talk page. The fact that no one has gotten around to adding them to the article yet is not a reason to delete the article. AfD is not a substitute for cleaning up the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in short, your rebuttal is that someone else (not you) should do the work to promote the program. TEDickey (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "promote" software here. My rebuttal is that this nomination is out of order because you failed to perform even the most cursory of checks as instructed at Wikipedia:Afd#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. (I will charitably assume that this is the result of gross negligence rather than bad faith.) Now that your attention has been drawn to the existence of sources you still aren't doing anything to impeach their reliability. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

provide the sources for discussion. any other response is nonconstructive. TEDickey (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In its current state, this article is barely allowable. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:03, 30 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 4 November 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.