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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djondb[edit]

Djondb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. No independent sources and nothing obvious in google. No evidence of awards. Created by an WP:SPA with a similar name to the self professed author of the software. PROD removed as the first edit of a brand-new account. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google News provided zero results so the software must not have received any news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, no 3rd party references to establish notability of this software, SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete software doesn't appear to be notable. No sources that meet the WP:GNG can be found. Vcessayist (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Does not meet WP:GNG especially as far as reliable sources go. JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 9 October 2012 (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.