Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldrin (software)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aldrin (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non-notable software. No independent third-party sources, despite the presence of a primarysources cleanup tag since August 2008. The article's only reference is to a review on a blog. Psychonaut (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete.  If your only source is a blog review, you're probably not notable.  JBsupreme (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Linux Journal source (which is good source, not a blog). LotLE × talk  20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Linux Journal itself is not a blog, but it hosts blogs, and the reference to Aldrin given in the article is to one of the blogs. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the author of that entry, Dave (or David) Phillips is also a published author with some authority in the field of audio software. See Articles for deletion/SoundTracker. Pcap ping  01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Seems rather obscure, with no other independent coverage besides that blog-like article. Also, this article was created by User:Paniq. Pcap ping  03:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; the only source turned up in this discussion is a blog review. The blog may be hosted by Linux Journal, but it's still a blog, not an editorially reviewed, published article. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Psychonaut. The reason some news sources and journals have blogs is to allow minor coverage of things that do not rise to the level of notoriaty or importance that the publication generally requires. Novaseminary (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.