Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altacast


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Altacast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. I tried looking for sources, but even with the two alt names I am not seeing anything but a few passing mentions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I think this really fails WP:ORGCRIT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article improvement since nomination has demonstrated satisfaction of all required criteria.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you adding the reception section. It certainly helps, but there's still no in-depth coverage. The two English sources I reviewed (PC World, Linux Journal) are not dedicated to Altacast, but to internet radios, and mention Altacast briefly as one of the examples. I am afraid that this is not enough, to be notable, we need multiple (2+) in-depth treatments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Both edcast and oddcast are both relevant to article. The use of these in the internet radio setups,while not the main focus, are essential components and are described in rather more than a passing mention.  On top of the Kosser (1) Kosola and Franz et al (2) Franzke, Nico; Damrau, Robert alone satisfy multiple requirement of General notability guideline without reliance on Miller which I also contest satisfies the requirement.  I have previously identified the Linux Journal as passing mention with regards notability but a relevant cite in the overall context of the article.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Franzke, Nico; Damrau, Robert seem to mention Oddcast only in passing, hardly sufficient for satisfying notability by itself. The master?doctoral? thesis at does go into it in more detail, covering few pages, but it is a thesis, so not a source of highest quality (not saying it is bad, just not great). This AfD will probably be closed as no consensus, and I guess the new sources help a bit, through IMHO still not sufficiently (as there's still not a single in-depth review or article about this topic, just a bunch of mentions in passing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: While a number of the sources appear questionable for establishing notability, overall it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Modernponderer (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears the Keep !voters above have not looked at the clarifications provided in WP:NCORP on the criteria for establishing notability for products. There references in the article do not meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any references that does. Topic fails GNG and NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed quite often in this type of article the majority of the sources may not be suitable for the purposes of establishing notability. As I indicated before the required sources necessary are present.  Article passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SUSTAIN and lines with WP:NSOFT and established practice. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Response First off, in my opinion, the article is more than a little misleading by saying that Altacast was formerly known as Edcast and Oddcast. This is untrue as Altacase is a brand new fork and in fact, Edcast is still a separate fork and still available for download. To me, this is an attempt by Altacast to "inherit" any notability available by Edcast and/or Oddcast. The "required sources" are not available because the correct guideline is WP:GNG/WP:NCORP and not NSOFT which is an essay. If you believe that there exists two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP, kindly post the links below so that other editors can evaluate them.  HighKing++ 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah .. I chronic mispells. Please accept apologies.  (1) Kosola and (2) Franzke, Nico; Damrau, Robert and I also claim (3) Miller.  Only (1) isnt available from the article ...  I've wayback'd a copy.  Regards.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Oddcast/Edcast were not "renamed" to Altacast - they're different software. The first reference isn't a reliable source since it is a thesis for a degree, not for a doctorate. Neither of the others mentions Altacast. The second doesn't mention Altacast but is a technical manual for Oddcast (different software). The PCWorld article lisewise doesn't mention Altacast but mentions Edcast. IF Altacast was notable, there should be a reference that actually talks about Altacast. Notability isn't inherited.  HighKing++ 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oddcast, Edcast, Altacast (orginally known as recast-reborn) are all development forks of the same software and perfect valid for the scope of the article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that is what the article says (unreferenced) and I understand that is the position you have adopted also, but that doesn't make it true, especially with the lack of third party corroboration on that assertion. Forks of software are "forks" for a reason - it means the new software is different and not the same as the old, especially when the old developers are no longer involved.  HighKing++ 11:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A good point, through being the devils advocate, I can see the merit of non-notable merging forks into one article focusing on the most notable, presumably original software. Whether the original software is notable does become an issue here, particularly as sources about forks are not fully relevant. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number of other pertinent points. First off, the original software would need to meet the criteria for notability and then we would need sources connecting the newer software (and the notability of the newer software) with the original. Bear in mind that in this case, there aren't any (third part independent, etc) references connecting the newer forks with the old software, or their relevance to the old software, etc. In this instance, even if the older software was deemed notable (and therefore the title of this article and the subject would need to be changed), we would still need references (independent third party, etc) where the new fork is discussed in light of the older software. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The nature of this being treated as one software development is given on the Altacast site and on various other websites, bellonline.co.uk from memory. It is implausible for there these to me distinguished, and if there were separate articles for all three there would likely be a case for merge.  I hit the point here where this discussion is disrupting me from doing more productive things .... in real life and better things in wikipedia.  I ask myself am I being goaded into a rescue?    I am recalling some points by Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination) by  and .Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:HighKing, bundled notability is not the same thing as inherited notability, but rather a somewhat obscure yet relatively common practice on Wikipedia in exactly this type of situation. So while you certainly have a point, you propose no alternative to deletion such as moving the page to a more notable title and refocusing it on that. As such, I must agree with User:Djm-leighpark overall. Modernponderer (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to confess I am not aware of "bundled notability" mentioned in any guideline/policy. Can you point me somewhere? I accept it may not be "officially" documented and agree that if it is "common practice" it should be considered. Also, I haven't exhaustively looked to see if "Oddcast" (the logical topic if an alternative suggestion was being sought) is notable but from what I've seen, it might not be. Regardless, given that the content contained within this article has almost nothing to do with that topic (other than perhaps earning a line under a "known forks" section), it seems to me that I cannot recommend any other actions other than "Delete" or "Write an article on a different (but related) topic". The argument put forward by (based on my understanding of what he has said) is based on the assumption that *any* fork is notable once the original software is notable. Is this what you are also agreeing to? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:HighKing: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any actual policy on the issue of bundled notability (which is as I expected though). However, I did look through WP:INHERIT and I still do not see how it applies to this type of case – it talks about notability going "up" and "down", but what about "sideways", when multiple closely-related subjects are discussed in a single article?
 * Re: your question at the end – obviously a fork is not necessarily notable just because the original software is (that is definitely an "inherited notability"-type argument). But given that we are discussing a single article here, I am not sure that is relevant, and I am pretty sure User:Djm-leighpark was actually making a similar "bundling" argument without referring to it by name.
 * Again, what I am looking for here is to preserve the main content of the article. Its title and exact focus in terms of forks are both much less important. I am open to supporting basically any proposal from you or other editor(s) concerning this article that does not involve outright deletion of the whole thing. Modernponderer (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "Bundled notability "is not the relevant term--rather, it refers to two related practices--
 * The first guideline is the sub-rule rule in the WP:GNG guideline, that notability does not necessarily lead to a separate article, if the content is such that they can be better covered as sections of a longer article.
 * Second, partly in consequence of this, in particular we normally cover software products form the same company together in a single article on the company, except for any of them that are clearly of independent notability . As I see it, trying to make multiple articles when they are not clearly justified isa promotional technique, and should be strongly discouraged. Even in practical terms, it is much easier to support one article with substantial content.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . That is also my understanding in terms of multiple "topics" in the same article. Wrt this topic, the closest analogy I can come up with (by leaning heavily on DGG's description) is Marble (software) (equivalent to Oddcast) and its fork Geothek (equivalent to Altacast). As I've said above, assuming that Oddcast is notable (and likely is), then Altacast can certainly get a mention as a "fork". What options are left for this article? Well, it doesn't make sense to "rename" this to Altacast since there's almost nothing in this article that would carry over - so in my opinion, that means someone needs to write a new article on Oddcast. Until that happens, I can't recomment a "Redirect" since there's nowhere to redirect to. Is there any option other than Delete? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * probably Keep--repurpose to a combination article for "Oddcast, Edcast, Altacast (orginally known as recast-reborn) which on the evidence above seem to be all versions of the same software. I am not sure what the correct name should be--it would be either the same of the original version, or the best known name. I think this article can be used as a base for rewriting, but I leave that to the people who know the topic better.  DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to keep the name as Altacast (if it aint broke leave it alone). For software in general later versions superset earlier versions and on occasions its better to describe the current and put the others in the history.  But there are exceptions.  On this occasion I'd suggest staying with altacast as it's fairly unique and I have a suspicion (unproved) the newer names were chosen to avoid clashes with another Oddcast's and Edcast's or that may have owned the copyright or to bypass a license distribution scrape.  But there is an argument it could suddenly re-incarnate as Trumpcast or something so something like Oddcast (software) might work well.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename to Oddcast (software) and Start Over. It is clear that Oddcast is notable and everything else appears to lean on this notability. I've struck my Delete !vote above. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.