Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jux

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jux

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

Unremarkable website/builder. Sources given are primary or one blog, searching for sources finds unrelated hits only and nothing to verify notability. Would appear to fail WP:WEB or GNG if you like. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted.metcalfe (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Added reference to trusted Educator blog. Yes, searches are somewhat noisy because the 3-letter word "jux" is common - short for "just", german for fun.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though according to WP:WEB, there should have been multiple publications about the site (a criteria JUX.com is lacking), it serves as a reference from WP's web content. It should be kept. CrossTempleJay talk 09:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above observations nowhere near enough indication of notability, with the two independent refs being very light coverage in blogs (or at least I think as one's not in English). That someone finds it a useful reference is not a criteria to keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If supersources are found later the article can be recreated/restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2011 (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.