Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMWiki (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. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAMWiki

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

This was deleted at AFD but a DRV was raised querying whether the sources were sufficiently discussed. The consensus of the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 5 is that this should be relisted so here we are. As the DRV closer I am listing this as a procedural matter and am therefore neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to the possible reliable source I mentioned in the previous AfD, an article on "Collaborative trust evaluation for wiki security", I was able to secure a PDF copy of the article in question. There is no doubt that it is a peer-reviewed reliable source, but only one paragraph was devoted to JAMWiki, which doesn't seem to be enough to be in depth. Other possible sources, but it is a stretch:

JAMWiki in the Cloud: a step-by-step tutorial This is a blog, but presumably written by an expert at Jelastic, so could be reliable
Integrating RankingAlgorithm Search Engine with JAMWiki In depth case study, but likely not a reliable source

The first source is in-depth and independent of JAMWiki; it could be an RS, if folks consider a tutorial an RS. The second source is a tutorial, but only about a specialized aspect of the software. --Mark viking (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the software's author, so please ignore if this is a WP:COI. I'm not sure whether coverage from security firms is relevant for notability purposes, but Secunia has considered JAMWiki to be noteworthy enough to issue two security advisories for past releases: CVE-2010-5054 and CVE-2007-01-31. There are also a handful of research papers out there for projects using JAMWIki - one such example is "Support for Integrity Module as Plug-in in an Existing Wiki" by Christopher Folsgaard & Mark Ludwigs [1]. -- Wrh2 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am still (i.e. since last AfD) happy that this clears the notability bar because of the numerous references (admittedly brief) in a books search, evidence of widespread use, and the security advisories above. There's also the comparative review at [2]. Mcewan (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons that I originally nominated this article for deletion. I think it's obvious that this wiki software has a small, devoted fan base. I think it's also obvious that there's not a single, unambiguous indicator as to its notability. It's been mentioned only briefly in books, and even the mentions it gets in unreliable sources like blogs and wikis tend to be brief. That thesis project in which a JAMWiki plugin was developed seems like the strongest case for the software's notability, and there may be other, similar projects, but it still doesn't seem like enough to me. Yaron K. (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No indication this is any more notable than it was last time, not even a month ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 15 February 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only "evidence" for the subject's notability seem to consist of original research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 24 February 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.