Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foosic

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foosic[edit]

Not-notable software. Doesn't claim notability. foosic gets 2 hits on news.google.com archive, but it is not about this software. It gets 71 hits on books.google.com, but none of those hits are about this software. If there are other reliable sources about this software they must be pretty deep. Article has not been edited in more than two years. Lack of edits = lack of interest = (evidence of) lack of notability. Software in general is not inherently notable, and run-of-the-mill media players and media tools are also not inherently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strongly passes the "Google test" with ~5k hits. Many of those are to discussions of the software/database in question. Hard to judge exact user base, but certainly appears plenty to sustain an (improved) article. LotLE×talk 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussions are specifically not WP:RS reliable sources indicating notability. Please find Reliable Sources that demonstrate the notability of this subject. '"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.' 'For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.' Miami33139 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you need to read more about the "Google Test" before attempting to use it as a claim to notability. Wikipedia:Google_Test#Notability. Miami33139 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom, 5K hits on Google are irrelevant in this case. I was expecting to see very different things in the first 20 or so, like reviews, mentions in notable blogs, ArsTechnica, etc. Something other than just package references for Linux distros and the project's page. §FreeRangeFrog 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article claims that foosic is a library, not a "media player" as claimed by the nominator. Libraries are not reviewed nor do they receive coverage in ArsTechnica, so determining the notability of the subject by such means will result a flawed conclusion. I have absolutely no experience in this field and I have never even heard of foosic until now (despite being an amaroK user), but I will attempt to look for sources in academic literature. Rilak (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He did say media tools. §FreeRangeFrog 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not mention Ars Technica, but mentioned searching books.google.com, which is the appropriate source to try and quickfind sources for something like this. Since it is not a product, but a programming tool, books.google.com should find references to documentation about using the tools, API syntax, or anything. Those sources don't appear to exist. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have conducted a thorough (relative to my experience on the subject of acoustic fingerprinting, which is none) search, and have found no significant coverage in any sources except for the foosic's website. Given that the author claims that foosic has achieved firsts in its field, it can be expected that other sources can confirm the claims, but I have found no significant interest in reliable sources whose scope is open source software. I must stress, this is not an indication of truthfulness of the claims, but of notability.

Additionally, from several fragmented sources, I understand that foosic was introduced in 2006, and that its author wrote the library as a research project at a Belgium university. However, I was unable to locate any literature related to that research project, but this may be because it is written in a language other than English. I have also discovered, from Google Code, that the author has abandoned it sometime ago and it is no longer in active development. Search in academic literature has located a thesis?, which mentions foosic in passing, and a paper published in Pattern Recognition, which I am unable to access. This suggests that foosic is not notable, so my conclusion is to delete it, but if new evidence is presented, I am willing to reconsider.

Lastly, in response to the comments regarding my previous comment: Firstly, while "media tools" can be used to describe foosic, the usage is not optimal. Secondly, my comment about ArsTechnica being unsuitable for determining the notability of the said library was directed at the editor who mentioned ArsTechnica, as suggested by the use of a separate sentence. Thirdly, Google books should not be considered a library of all published works, nor should it be considered to be a place where documentation may be found. One must also consider the amount of time it takes for a book to be published and the age of the subject. Additionally, the nature of open source software also means that sometimes the documentation for is the same as the source code. Rilak (talk) 04:53, 20 February 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.