Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music on Console
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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Music on Console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Just another Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill software media player. Nothing unique, doesn't have notability claimed or referenced. No sources at all. Search for sources only reveals blogs and sourceforge, nothing that determines notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as one of very few console-based media players (most are GUI). Moderately widely used among the certain geek set where console-based is seen as a feature :-). This product is actively maintained and has active user discussion group, indicating that more than sufficient readers will want information on this topic.LotLE×talk 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please address notability with links to multiple independent reliable sources? User discussion groups and "certain geek set" furthers the claim that this is a niche project that is not notable to a general audience. Miami33139 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Lulu that it's in active development and noteworthy. Sources? 1 2 3 4 5 6...need I go on? Matt (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources. Of those six links, the only one that meets WP:Reliable sources is linux.com. Even that reference doesn't establish notability. Notability requires significant coverage, not a single small mention discussing the subject as one of many others in a "best of the rest" section. Miami33139 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The Linux.com reference above exceeds "trivial" coverage (barely) and the other references, along with the number of Google hits (7000+), indicate some community interest. – 74 00:52, 5 March 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.
