Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jsreport


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Jsreport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any reliable sources about this software. Sam Walton (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As the initiator of the jsreport project, can I do something to avoid the deletion from wikipedia? I can't add an article to NYT, but maybe there is something else? I don't know all the rules, but it looks like to me that the project with massive use and 60 000 downloads in relatively small segment of reporting servers could have its place on wiki. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pofider (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - wow! Your last edit was nearly three years ago, yet you responded here within minutes of this discussion going up. So I'm guessing that that you're pretty handy at web monitoring too. :) Anyway. This is a tricky one. Going strictly by WP:GNG, the nominator is right, it doesn't have significant coverage in WP: Reliable sources online, and zero Google News or Gbooks hits. But Wikipedia doesn't have official guidelines yet on software notability, mostly because it's so hard to come up with any general guidelines on which a broad cross-section of editors can agree. It seems to have pretty good support outside the project, NuGet, PyPi, etc., and it seems to get a lot of mentions on sites like StackExchange. A lot of widely used FOSS tools suffer from the problem of being overlooked by magazines and books, unfortunately. So I don't know quite whether this should be deleted or not, and would be interested to hear from wiser editors than me, before deciding. Wikishovel (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete.. Cites no third-party sources, no indication of notability.  Sandstein   06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply advertising based from our policies. SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 1 February 2017 (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.