Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Geoscience 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jason Geoscience Workbench

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essentially an advert for a specialised product for a niche market. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other articles on other products in the same market are already in Wikipedia. This article was intended to add to the options available for readers. I can reformat the article to follow the style of the Microsoft Word article, if that would better meet editorial standards.76.88.21.232 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No claim made about notability, no external sources about the product. All sources cited do not refer to the product itself. LK (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Article now rewritten to add external sources, statement about notability and sections on history and versions. Boldstroke (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not finding any significant reliable sources that establish the notability of this software. The Fugro-Jason Web pages cited in the article don't count, and all the other references are to sources dealing with general concepts, which don't mention the software. If sources that treat this in detail, other than ones produced by Fugro-Jason itself, can be adduced, I'm willing to reconsider; but as it stands, the article is clearly inadmissible. Deor (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an advert for a product that borrows from geological material already in Wikipedia. Most of the references are to the company's website anyway. It's clever though. §FreeRangeFrog 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.