Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baudline


 * 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. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Baudline

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Despite the impressive reference list recently added to the article, this software lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The fact that they offer their binaries for free, and charge for GPL code would raise a stink for any notable software, but this one flies under the radar, because, well, it's not notable. All references are either random personal web pages or passing mentions. Did I mention the page was created by User:Baudline? Pcap ping  08:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what free binaries, charging for GPL code, and "raising a stink" have to do with software notability? A Google scholar search returns 12 hits. I believe the notability requirement is meet by two of the references mentioned on the Talk:Baudline page. The first is inclusion on FreshPorts which is the FreeBSD software port distribution system. The second is the the "Acoustic cryptanalysis" article in which Adi Shamir, who happens to be the S in RSA, based an entire research project on baudline. Audiocow (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Those are merely passing mentions. The Shamir paper has some screenshots which use baudline, and a brief acknowledgment at the end of the paper, while the paper isn't about baudline (obviously). "Based an entire research project on baudline" is puffery. 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions? FreeBSD's FreshPorts is the equivalent of what apt-get is to Debian and yum is to Redhat. They are independently reviewed and maintained software repositories. And puffery? The only software the Shamir "Acoustic cryptanalysis" project used was baudline as a signal analysis tool and GnuPG as a CPU instruction noise maker. Audiocow (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Software being included in repositories is not an accepted inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. Nor is being used by someone famous a card for inclusion. Pcap ping  23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. These software repositories are not like Freshmeat, Tucows, and SourceForge where anyone can generate an entry or create content. FreshPorts, root apt-get, and yum are the "official" repositories for their respective distributions. They have an independent editorial team that makes the exclusive decisions on what to add and what to say. This is very similar to how a magazine or newspaper operates. About the Shamir paper, it is not just some famous person saying something, this is "published" research that has many citations. Audiocow (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Some of the reference links are dead. Passing reference in scholarly papers--they use the software, but the papers are not about the software. The Shamir paper is similar, and neither his notability nor the notability of the article confer notability to the tools he uses. Inclusion in a linux distro's official software repository does not confer notability, ports are added by volunteers, see . I find that particular argument curious, however, since freshports does not in fact distribute baudline due to licensing issues, see . Also, just for clarity, GPL generally refers to Gnu Public License, and this ain't GPL code. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked and updated the access dates for all of the reference links. Found two dead links and was able to find a fix for one of them. About ports being added by volunteers, here is a quote "Where do ports come from? Ports are created by other FreeBSD volunteers, just like you and just like the creators of FreshPorts. The FreshPorts team does not create ports; we just tell you about the latest changes. The FreeBSD Ports team creates, maintains, and upgrades the ports." This quote doesn't make any sense, everybody creates them but who adds them? So is there or is there not any editorial control at FreshPorts? Audiocow (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be pointy, but if you don't know how they work, should you have claimed "They have an independent editorial team that makes the exclusive decisions on what to add and what to say"? But to answer your question, no, there is apparently no editorial review at FreshPorts, they seem to be programmatically tracking the tree over at FreeBSD ports, when a new version of a port is committed, FreshPorts picks that up and notifies users who subscribe to that service. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that is how I thought FreshPorts operated. As I mentioned, their FAQ contradicts itself so it's not entirely clear. This seems to suggest that baudline is an "official" FreeBSD port. I have a hard time believing that they let just anybody add stuff to their "official" tree. Audiocow (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't, but inclusion wouldn't be based on anything akin to editorial review. There are over 20K packages in FreeBSD's ports project. The purpose of a ports project is to make software easy to install, so if you wanted to write a port, you could submit it, and if it worked, and didn't break anything, it would almost certainly be included. The way that's usually managed is with a stable tree with all "known good" packages, and an unstable or development tree, in this case "Current". -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I just added a couple SETI references and over at the Talk:Baudline page I added a list of Wikipedian images that were created with baudline. The more I search the more references I find. Some are in scholarly papers while others are in blogs and personal pages. None of these references meet the notability high-bar of being a featured article in a major magazine or newspaper but that isn't surprising since baudline only runs on the fringe FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris operating systems. So for notability purposes; no major coverage but a very large number of "lesser" references. This is more than what 80% of Wikipedia software articles have. Audiocow (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, blogs are not considered reliable sources, and checking through the references I see no articles providing significant coverage of the baudline. Images created by baudline do not establish notability. Other stuff exists--I'm not sure your 80% figure is accurately, but we are only concerned with this article in this discussion. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 23 May 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.