Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Workbench

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. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Workbench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete unsourced article about a software program without any indication that it is notable or why it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't assert any significance.   jj137 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - find references and keep as stub. If you can't find any references, then WP:PROD it.Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going from AfD to Prod is, process-wise, the wrong way round. ;-) If the AfD has been started anyway, there's no point in going back to Prod. -- Lea (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous AFD nominations are, in fact, excluded from PROD. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Google Scholar finds a paper about it[1] (added to external links). Might be notable. -- Lea (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It would be a speedy deletion candidate as A1 or A3. "X is Y" is not an article. To say that the program has evidence of existence is kind of weak. Things advertised on the Internet are going to have evidence on the Internet, just like things mentioned in the newspaper are going to have newspaper attestation. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article doesn't seem to assert notability and there are no reliable sources to prove otherwise. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, what about the paper I added? We're talking about coverage in reliable third-party sources here, no? -- Lea (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines. – jaksmata 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As confirmed by the above mentioned source, the tool is closely related to Jackson Structured Programming and mentioned there and the author id listed among the active members of the Jackson Software Development community.[2] Even if we count it as third part source, it's just one. So I'll move the ref the JSP article and then we can delete or redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (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.