Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaikoz

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaikoz[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. I'd actually prefer a redirect to MusicBrainz (a related topic that mentions Jaikoz), but some other editors have suggested that I initiate an AfD to get a clear consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I examined this article awhile back (it had a longstanding notability tag), and found no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In reply to a response: if a redirect is inappropriate, then delete.Ray^Talk 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect was opposed here and here. -- intgr [talk] 19:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? Keep, merge, delete? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep it, but I don't have any sources to help establish notability. -- intgr [talk] 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, if redirection is deemed inappropriate (WP:R#DELETE #4), deletion is my second choice. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Article seems to be a promotional effort by the software author (assuming Paul Taylor is User:Pault100). Sources are insignficant. Haakon (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~or delete~~ Only redirect if there is at least one third party source. The redirect should be a new section in the MetaBrainz article about third party software using the service and software that is mildly notable (one third party source) but not independently notable (multiple third party sources) can grow there. Miami33139 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Update Added references are very weak for a standalone article. I support moving and redirecting this to a single paragraph mention as I said above. Miami33139 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak? Macnews, Macworld, and two national universities? Perhaps you can elaborate on your statement. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in a directory listing for a CD-ROM is not notable at all. Short reviews by magazines that print lots of short reviews do not show much notability. The university links aren't about this software, and the amount of information specifically about this software is a few sentences. The general notability guideline wants significant coverage. This coverage is trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The academic links are both to research into automatic metadata generation, and both cite Jaikoz as an exemplar of existing art. That is de facto notable, my friend. I suppose you can argue that the attention of a Macworld editor doesn't contribute to notability, but you'll be in the minority. Ditto for software distributed by Macworld on a bonus CD. It was on the CD because the editors of a major computer publication deemed it of particular interest to their readers. And Macworld has a lot of readers. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They academic sources are not about Jaikoz, and do not give it significant coverage, even if they cite it as an implementation. Shovelware has never been accepted as evidence of notability that I know of. Miami33139 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now cites positive reviews by a Macnews.de senior editor and by a Macworld Germany editor writing for iPhoneWorld, cites the program's inclusion by Macworld Italy on a CD supplement, and cites two academic references to the program. It may not be the Lindy hop, but it's surely notable. I'd ask early voters to reconsider their votes. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your recent contributions and concur with Miami33139. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? They seem at least as significant as the notable coverage of Carolann B. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the sources available, not the sources currently in an article. If you don't think my sources for Carolann B are sufficient, please bring it up at Talk:Carolann B and I'll add some more. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? You don't actually have to include notable sources in an article, you only have to believe that they exist? I'd hoped to understand what, in you opinion, was notable by examining articles you'd approved, but clearly there's more to notability than meets the eye. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yappy2bhere. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that the German articles qualify as "significant coverage", though quite weak at that. -- intgr [talk] 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While there is coverage there, it is right on the border of what I would consider significant and am loth to fall on either side of the fence. Brilliantine (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A full review (& a very positive one) in a major Mac publication macnews.de is sufficient, along with the other citations given. A merge with MusicBrainz is not reasonable, for it's only one of the programs that uses that database DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 19 December 2009 (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.