Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBpoweramp

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DBpoweramp[edit]

Non-notable music player/encoder. Zero references, no third-party coverage. Article lacks summary of notability, article lacks lots of necessary facts (such as clear licensing information, not just some sort of rumors on controversies). Lots of facts in the article need strict checking and sourcing (and, I guess, due to their nature, it won't be possible - for example I bet that no one concluded a proper scientifical study of opinions of users in weasel-words ridden phrases such as "Many users were upset"). Most of the information looks like blatant advertisement, but speedy delete was contested by a creator. GreyCat (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete a google search found some reviews here here but I doubt that 2 reviews will be enough --Numyht (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add these 2 reviews to the article if you believe they are references. --GreyCat (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment question is though, do they pass WP:RS? --Numyht (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Tech Journalist Robert Heron (TechTV) of DL.TV strongly recommended using DBpoweramp for ripping and encoding large CD collections in Episode 162: Linux, dBpoweramp, Polite Video Sharing and more. of DL.TV. Don't think he would make such recommendations if it wasn't noteworthy. —IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 11:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DL.TV seems to be a video podcast, I doubt that it's a major one. I doubt that DL.TV article in Wikipedia itself passes notability guidelines (lacking any valid 3rd-party references/reviews/etc). --GreyCat (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree that the article currently is way below our quality standard. However, we have articles on all other notable CD rippers, and according to this (not statistically representative) survey it's the third most used one. BTW, I actually got to this page because I wanted to find out a bit about it - but then, that may not count since I'm wikiholic. — Sebastian 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not sources cited and all the material in the article appears to be simply what you'd expect the app's own webpage to contain (features, licensing, codecs, etc) -- making it little more than WP:ADVERT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:48, 4 January 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.