Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimmix

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. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmix[edit]

Non-notable software. No unique features. Unsourced. Makes no claim to notability and does not provide sources showing notability. Run of the mill open source players are not inherently notable. Notable subjects have active editors and wikilinks. This article has no major edits in more than a year, and few wikilinks except for templates. Miami33139 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Software without reliable sources and proof of notability = delete. Spiesr (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately well known software (part of odd deletion pattern of editor nominating very many Free Software products for deletion). LotLE×talk 22:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because You like it? It does not meet our notability criteria. I am proposing deletion of run-of-the-mill media players that do not establish notability. Free, unfree, open-source or paid does not matter. There is nothing inherently notable about media playing software. Wrapping some UI code around an audio API on any modern platform is trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is really "moderately well known" then it should be able to show that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Spiesr (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage of reliable third party media, non-notable. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Non-notable. Guy0307 (talk) 01:00, 21 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.