Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XAudio2

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. This may seem, on the surface, to be consensus for keeping, but the points raised by the nominator give me enough pause to abstain from finding a consensus to keep; I instead find no consensus to delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XAudio2[edit]

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

Apparently not notable: both existing references are Microsoft authored, subject not found in independent reliable sources, except descriptions of bugs and workarounds Pointillist (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The XAudo2 article may be a stub, but it is notable as it's being used on a lot of software of games as a plug in. As a matter of fact, it is used in emulators like VisualBoyAdvance-M and it is superior to other solutions. I was looking up this software when I found the AFD going on. Primary sources to Microsoft does not indicate deleatiblity, although discouraged, isn't delete worthy. As other Microsoft API's have articles, I can't find any reason this one doesn't. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "books" link above finds several independent reliable sources, one of which is now in the article. And, as Dark Mistress points out, being a major Microsoft API does have a strong presumption of notability. -- 101.119.14.241 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the article - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article text doesn't include any claim to notability.
AFAICS the brief mentions in Programming 2D Games (list) and Ultimate Game Programming with DirectX (list) don't confer notability, because they only mention the API in passing, not as a significant initiative.
Many (possibly most) officially published sources that deal with technology aren't reliable sources. They are commercially parasites whose business model is to reprint press releases or explain technology stacks that are being promoted by a major player. Such sources aren't independent because being neutral is expensive and anyway very few people want them to be (there's a much larger market for a deep-but-partisan book about Knockout than there is for a shallow-but-neutral title that compares all front-end frameworks). Nor are they reliable, because they often just repeat what has been published by the vendor, rather than independently investigating what the vendor claims.

Comments on the !votes above - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that if anything has a Microsoft marketing label is automatically enjoys encyclopedic notability. Indeed I raised this four months ago at WikiProject Windows. So far no-one has replied to that, so we should apply the usual notability criteria.
The statement by Dark Mistress (who has made 65 article edits so far on enwiki) that "As a matter of fact, it is used in emulators like VisualBoyAdvance-M and it is superior to other solutions." requires a source for each claim.
The reasoning by 101.119.14.241 (who has made 4 article edits so far on enwiki) that "As other Microsoft API's have articles" is a discredited Other stuff argument. As it says there: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Well, they'll have to go, too.

Sorry, that's inaccurate. As anyone can see by reading this page, the IP comments were "The books link above finds several independent reliable sources" and "being a major Microsoft API does have a strong presumption of notability" -- both of which are true statements. The first can be easily checked; the second reflects the fact that the Microsoft platforms are (for good or ill) the dominant ones. Obscure APIs that nobody uses or refers to should not have articles, but major ones should. -- 101.119.15.78 (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I accidentally attributed a Dark Mistress statement to the IP. Sorry about that - Pointillist (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that XAudio2 is a "major" API isn't borne out by the sources I checked. This claim should be sourced in the article. - Pointillist (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book Ultimate Game Programming with DirectX discusses XAudio2 in depth on pages 283-289, more than a passing mention. There is an 8-part tutorial on Xaudio2 at win32developer.com. I do not share the nom's deep cynicism of the trade press and regard both of these as independent reliable sources. In addition, there are independent reliable sources, in less depth, that could also be useful, such as the book Professional XNA Programming: Building Games for Xbox 360 and Windows with XNA Game Studio 2.0, which has about half a page on that discusses it and the two articles at at Maximum PC and Ars Technica which cover the XAudio2 debut. The existence of multiple in-depth reliable sources shows notability, per WP:GNG. While the article could be developed in greater depth, it has no major problems. In particular, the article does assert the notability of XAudio2 as the successor to DirectSound. I don't see any evidence of promotion or non-neutrality in the article. The article has no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: I don't have that source book, but if the XAudio2 content is the same as this version at ultimategameprogramming.com I don't agree that it demonstrates notability. It's just a brief intro followed by pages of source code, much of it copied directly from MSDN documentation (e.g. the Voices section starts with code copied from IXAudio2::CreateMasteringVoice method). The Ars Technica source is a mention in passing (they even say that XAudio2 was overshadowed by the DirectX 10.1 announcement). The Maximum PC item is a blog post summarizing Microsoft's announcement. Mark, I'm not cynical about the reasons people write and buy technical books: my desk is surrounded by O'Reilly, Manning, Apress, Springer etc titles written by people who have specialized in their area. I just don't kid myself that they are neutral. It's simple: if you've spent two years understanding MongoDB or SharePoint, you've already chosen your platform and – at least in terms of your experience and mental bandwidth – rejected the alternatives. I entirely understand that if you are a Windows/XBox games developer then the sound API is really important to you. But if I can't find XAudio2 discussion by searching any major technology title (I tried drdobbs.com, ieeexplore.ieee.org, infoq.com, sdtimes.com, computer.org, computerworld.com, pcmag.com, zdnet.com), then it isn't notable. - Pointillist (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly find articles on ieeexplore.ieee.org -- for some researchers, use of the low-level sound API is essential. -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: using advanced search (article text as well as metadata) returned this and this. But I don't have an IEEE login and this week I won't be visiting a library that has. Can anyone check those articles to see whether the mentions are significant? - Pointillist (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I may buy the $31.00 article... I'm not sure if I can actually disclose the information however. Such disclosures would almost certainly bear a non-disclosure agreement... I'll talk to my grandmother to see if I can buy it, but I can't guarantee it. If I do however, I would like to know if I can disclose it. I have a feeling I almost certainly can't, but I can verify it. It's in a PDF files, and I don't know if it's got DRM attached to it or not, ether way we're looking at serious breach of contract. If anyone has time to look at the strings attached, reply later. If I do buy it, I'll let you know. Even members have to pay $13.00, but since I'm not, I pay full price. Maybe the government of US has them for free, I doubt it. I'll let you know later in a couple of days to see if I can buy it, K? --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 19:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to both of these articles. For Aural Proxies and Directionally-Varying Reverberation for Interactive Sound Propagation in Virtual Environments, Xaudio2 is mentioned in the implementation section, but only in one sentence. For Rendering Sound and Images Together, Xaudio2 is again only mentioned as one of several game audio API. Interesting articles, but I'm afraid that neither of these sources count as in-depth. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Thanks very much for checking. @Dark Mistress: Most college/uni libraries have access to that sort of material for free. It won't necessarily be obvious – you might need to ask your librarian. Actually, I could have read them but only when I'm on campus at my old university, I don't have the right remote access right now. Unfortunately there are far fewer independent computing/development magazines around compared with 15–20 years ago, so it is harder to find proper references for more recent technologies. I did check in good faith: I'm usually an "inclusionist"! - Pointillist (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Just to confirm: are you still !voting to keep? - Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Mark viking (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would point out that, apart from the nom, all the !votes here are "keep." -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but is it relevant? It is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of !votes. Anyway, if you want to use numeric measures only two of us can demonstrate significant Wikipedia experience: Mark viking has made 2842 article edits, I've made 5365, including comprehensively sourcing and extending articles like Bed management and Kilburn Priory to save them at AfD. - Pointillist (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I've been a Wikipedia IP-editor for several years. And my experience tells me: no closing admin is going to call three "keeps" a consensus to delete. -- 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.15.86 (talk)

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.