I don't think we should confuse Wikipedia's preferences with the preferences of individual editors.
I regard Wikipedia as more reliable than most internet sources (or even the Bible ), but one should always be aware of its limitations.
I don't think it is easy for an ordinary editor to delete an article, but deletions can be requested, so that it can be discussed before action is taken.
I agree, however, that deletion could be the best answer to this problem, as incorrect information is not helpful to anyone, and it is not worth getting involved in "edit wars".
I hope I have now been able to convince the overzealous Wikipedia editor that I am not a stakeholder in the jAlbum article.
I have now (painstakingly) recreated all of the edits that were UNDONE.
Can I ask some kind jAlbum user to proofread the corrected article and alert me to any potential problems?
Also any suggestions would be welcome re some secondary sources that can be added to remove the new flag that appears at the top of the page?
Thankyou RobM for that secondary source reference.
I have now included that site as a secondary source reference for the License section.
This article now contains 3 primary sources and 4 secondary sources - I am not sure what is required to eliminate the template message. I will try to investigate further before removing the template (I don't want to get involved in any "edit wars").
I would be grateful if anyone has suggestions for further secondary or tertiary sources for particular statements, but I don't see this as an urgent issue.