Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PulseEffects

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PulseEffects[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

PulseEffects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. The page creator tried to circumvent the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources by flooding the page with 27 links to GitHub and other software projects like FFmpeg or Calf Studio, but of course none of them addresses the notability issue. The only semi-notable source I could find is the brief article on Phoronix, but that's not nearly enough for establishing notability. J. M. (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not try to circumvent anything. I only added references because you propose the deletion for lack of reference. It's not flood, the application has many plugin and every plugin has a reference on the original developer page. Before there was no reference and that's not good, now the references are there and you complain what? The software is notable because it is the only software on Linux that gives the ability to use more audio effects with one app and gives the user the control on how to use them, how to customize them and choose what order to use them. It has been cited on Linux Format magazine in September 2017: see Coverdisc Hotpicks section. You can read it here and see the page here (chapter 50 LFX Hot Picks, subscribe to see full). Other articles on it: PulseEffects: A Nice System-Wide PulseAudio Equalizer Audio Effects App - Linux Uprising, PulseEffects is a Powerful GTK Audio Effects & Equalizer App for Linux - OMG Ubuntu, Enhancing audio in GNU/Linux with PulseEffects in Linux Mint 18.3 - ghacks.net, System-Wide PulseAudio Effects Software PulseEffects Update Includes Configurable Number Of Equalizer Bands - Linux Uprising. Digitalone (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed deletion and notability tags were added because of the lack of notability, not because of the lack of references. The extremely excessive flood of references (coupled with the removal of the tags) did not address the problem at all. References to other projects or to the GitHub project page are irrelevant for establishing notability.
"The software is notable because it is the only software on Linux that gives the ability to use more audio effects with one app"—as User:Piotrus already explained to you a couple of days ago, usefulness is irrelevant for notability on Wikipedia (and besides, it's not even true, there are many programs on Linux that can chain audio effects, but that's not the point here).
As for the links:
  1. Linux Uprising—anonymous blog, not an acceptable source.
  2. The Phoronix article—I already mentioned it. Not significant coverage.
  3. The gHacks article: a short introduction, it is debatable whether that constitutes significant coverage. Furthermore, one of the notability criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) says: "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement." The article does not seem to meet this requirement (or any other criteria mentioned in the article).
  4. The OMG! Ubuntu article—again, a short introduction written by an author who admits he doesn't really know much about the topic, and mostly just written because a "reader, tipped us to the app".
  5. Linux Format—OK, maybe, but you need multiple significant sources for establishing notability. Wikipedia:Notability (software) also says: "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers."
So all in all, it still doesn't look very convincing to me.—J. M. (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are other notable sources:
Digitalone (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another paper magazine wrote a review on PulseEffects: Linux Pro n.186 February 2018, Page 57. Digitalone (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've removed some references from the article (and may remove more yet), as they are less helpful rather than more helpful. I have looked at the first on the above list and wonder if anyone has any problems with that. for notability Its actually easier to give your 4 best sources and explain what there about than presenting 10 and asking reviewers to sort them out as most do not have time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Comment: I think sufficient improvements have been made and additional references added.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Piotrus: The Linux Magazine source seems agreed sufficient as perhaps does the one mentioned in the nomination, however much it is not cared for. Use of Neither here implies only two of several sources presented were reviewed so things are a bit ambiguous. As you had previously PROD'd the article it is inconcievable you have only been waiting for the relist. The main article contributor seems very passionate about the article but does not seem to be aware of how to !vote at AfC. Anyway whats really wound me up is relisting before 168 hours are up. I may be pedantic .. and some may say display signs of the autistic spectrum by complaining about the 168 hours ... but I'll actually take advice you gave me previously with regards RL on this one and withdraw my keep !vote, remove from watchlist and leave the article/AfC to its fate. I will tag it for WP:RESCUE in case anyone wants to take it up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews on two paper magazines, Linux Magazine and Linux Format, plus other web reviews cited in the article. They are independent because they have an author, they are not involved with PulseEffects developer and does not come from an anonymous blog. Cited sources in the article are reliable (if you think they are not, explain why). Thus the article is notable. Digitalone (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PulseEffects&oldid=890947147"