Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geomajas (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 08:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geomajas

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

Years after the prior AFD, it seems like it's still the same problems, there's still no independent reliable sources that would evidence notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 08:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 08:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited advertorial. Insufficient sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Open Source Geospatial Foundation. I could not find sufficient reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2016 (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.