Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JasperReports


 * 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. Mango juice talk 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

JasperReports

 * — (View AfD)

The article was previously deleted as WP:CSD (corporate advertising) but the deletion has been overturned at deletion review based on this version created in user space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve so that it doesn't sound like an ad. A quick google search finds 1M+ hits, so probably meets WP:SOFT pretty easily.  First page of results finds this as one example: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2002/jw-0920-opensourceprofile.html ... Article could use better sourcing.  Time spent debating an AfD on this would probably be better spent improving the article with sources and by toning-down the superlative adjectives. Tarinth 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just now edited JasperReports and removed the advertising language. Anthony Appleyard 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing to indicate that this product stand out from countless other bits of software. The only print we're provided with is from the zdnet blogs, hardly the multiple/non-trivial/independant coverage.  The length of time that this was previously on afd, rolled around on drv, and now back to here starts to add up... It's been consistantly claimed that this could have sources added that show its notability, but oddly that is not happening.  I'd strongly suggest that anyone who wants this article to be kept actually get to the page and add multiple non-trivial sources. -  brenneman  23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Not saying "delete" or "keep" in bold because this isn't a vote and my stand is clear enough.
 * Comment It doesn't have to "stand out" as you put it, merely be in either widespread usage or talked about in other media. That much was obvious from the google search.  Frankly I don't care enough about the product/company to edit the article and add sources--I'll leave that to people more knowledgeable about it.  I just don't think that deletions should be fired off soley on the basis of poor sourcing, which can be improved over time. Tarinth 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be argumentative, just tossing it around, but "Obvious from Google" has been said often and led nowhere. The guideline is clear: All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia.  If no one cares enough about this topic to find and add in sources, it should not simply lie around until the day when someone might.  I'll withdraw from the floor now, to let others speak. -  brenneman  23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were arguing. One thing I'd like to state, in addition to what's been said thus far, is that a lack of interest on behalf of the particular editors who happen to watch WP:AFD/T to fix an article is not a reason to delete the article either.  WP does have facilities such as  and  to push editors toward improving articles.  If we removed all articles that included the latter, WP would be sparse indeed. Tarinth 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Big  top  00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator said he had "no opinion" and that this was a procedural listing nomination. "Delete per nom" doesn't make sense here. Dugwiki 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I see enough news hits with non-trivial coverage.  According to ComputerWire Issue 5242, for example, "San Francisco-based JasperSoft has already established a beachhead among Java developers with its open-source reporting engine, JasperReports. The company claims to have seen over 420,000 downloads from the Sourceforge.com website and says is currently being used by 10,000 companies and ISVs worldwide." -SpuriousQ 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Me = broken record: I've hounded the person who brought this to deletion review to provide sources. I've hounded at least one person who supported bringing it back to AfD to provide sources.  If one more person says "don't delete (yet) because there are sources out there" I am going to eat my hat.  Please, if they are there, put them in the article. -  brenneman  02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Wait and give time for additional sources. This article (in addition to WP and WP:NPOV issues) has almost no sources listed. The google hits suggest they may be out there, but they need to be provided given the posture of this article. Proof a previous AfD was incorrect should be provided by the person seeking overturning as a matter of course and this requirement should be enforced. Keep if additional sources are supplied satisfying WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE, Delete otherwise. --Shirahadasha 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where are the sources? "Maybe someday soon, sure, you bet" aren't sources. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete unless reliable sources are added before the close of the AfD. WP:V is non-negotiable, and overrides even concensus.  It is the job of those who wish information kept to provide sources when challenged or suffer the loss of the information, and this has clearly been challenged.  If the subject is actually notable, then five days should be plenty of time to come up with some sources to demonstrate that notability. -- Xtifr tälk 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not 5 but already 10 days as it is contested. Mukadderat 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems mostly harmless. ~ Flameviper 14:14, 10 January 2007 (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.