Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jcoder Java IDE Editor Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jcoder_Java_IDE_Editor

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. BJ^Talk 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jcoder Java IDE Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article lacks reliable sources to verify that this product meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added sources from which the program can be downloaded, and indicated on the talk page that she believed that these sources would solve the problem. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Highly unlikely software released as a beta would be notable at this point. eaolson (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer a beta version so I've changed it from beta to freeware. Also, I know that an article needs independent third-party sources which show that it's of notability and importance, so I found these links.

Editor's review: http://www.alexaboostup.com/cgi-bin/nph-pxy.pl/000010A/http/www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/JCODER--Review-88906.shtml blogger's reviews: http://webmasterfreeware.blogspot.com/2008/06/jcoder-10-freeware.html http://www.getpack.com/archives/13816 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manycat (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per FisherQueen, and it also seems there's a conflict of interest with the article's author seeking to promote the software. Checking the link to the editor's review, the review is based on an unrelated calendar program, so I wouldn't trust it as a reliable source. --Gerta (talk) 19:05, 26 July 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.