Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decibel Audio Player

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. One keep vote indicates that the existence of numerous blog sources implies that reliable sources might exist, but no actual evidence of such sources has been found/provided. The last vote indicates 3 new sources, but none of those meet WP:RS either. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel Audio Player[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability asserted or found. No reliable references provided or found. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it's freaking hard to find Linux multimedia player called decibel, given that this name is used by KDE's multimedia framework and that search engines include results for "dB". As of now I found Softsonic's (download site) editor's review,a list of 16 Linux players with Decibel in the middle and Gentoo's review of the software. This is clearly not enough. Still massive blog coverage suggest that there might be some more reliable sources; I would vote keep (without weak) if at list one more reliable source could be found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if I'm supposed to talk here, but googling for "decibel audio player" returns about 1,210,000 results. What do you consider reliable or not exactly in those results? This software is also officially packaged by the major Linux distributions (e.g., Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora). Other than that, I don't understand why this page should be deleted and not the thousands of other pages on similar software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.67.37 (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone is welcome to comment. However, the number of Google Hits on its own isn't usually considered as a reason to keep. What matters is the quality of the results returned. For example, forum posts and blogs would in most circumstances be discounted. As far as software is concerned, a bare minimum, I would expect to see a good number of reviews in good quality sources. In reality, I would prefer to also see coverage in at least some of professional news sources, books (printed) and/or peer reviewed academic publications. If only because it is extremely hard to write anything about a subject if the best sources presented are 3 sentences on a download site, a paragraph in a group review and a "review" that actually looks more like an installation guide.

Equally, the fact that there is other crap on Wikipedia isny considered as a reason to keep either. If other subjects arent notable, they should be nominated as well. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, there's none cited in the article, and nobody else has come up with any.--Michig (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article denotes self-promotion. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 11 February, 2012; 13:11
Keep. It may not be among the most known audio players, but is recognized by some sites because of its simplicity and low resource usage.[1][2][3] I don't think the article is promotional. --Mapep (talk) 05:03, 17 February 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.