Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lsongs


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lsongs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just another run-of-the-mill media player that isn't notable, doesn't demonstrate notability, doesn't claim notability, has no sources, and doesn't do anything that every other media player written by Joe Bob doesn't do. Miami33139 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Miami. It isn't notable (in my opinion), doesn't demonstrate notability, and doesn't claim notability and has no sources. I believe it to be blatant advertising (CSD G11). Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Integral part of Linspire and a few third-party mentions. § FreeRangeFrog 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That third party mention - I think it's a press release, by the company. That's not really an independent source. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Linspire is notable. Individual components of it are not inherently notable without independent coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't wanna get into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but realistically, every GNOME and KDE and XFCE component has its own page. I think there's one for every Ubuntu admin tool as well. Why should this be treated any differently? § FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally I'm not treating them differently, and eventually WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/all of it would be analyzed for independent notability. I'd like to see that all of these components, for any distro, or any piece of software for any OS have reliable sourcing independent of the subject to establish that they are notable independent of their major OS.  Maybe these things would be better off as Components of XX.  It is also true that Ubuntu probably has 100x the install base of Linspire.  Any inherited notability of a component obviously decreases with the inherent notability of the parent.
 * So, does this software meet our notability requirements? Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the guidelines are shot to heck, you have to look at it from the angle of prior art, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be trumped. We have articles for every component of every desktop manager of every distro. We have unremarkable recordings of remarkable artists, and they exist simply because of the implicit association. Given that, and the lack of clear guidelines, my criteria here simply boils down to it's a component of Linspire. No better and no worse :) § FreeRangeFrog 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per FreeRangeFrog (and also because the scattershod nominations of every audio software stub by Miami33139 is blatant bad faith, and he has made no effort to examine individual notability of products). LotLE × talk  23:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope we wouldn't keep something nominated in bad faith unless it were also worth keeping on it on its own merits, at which point it doesn't matter whose faith was good or bad. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked you to discuss with me ways to revive Notability (software) to try and come up with a functional guideline. You stopped discussing with me, but keep leaving this attack on my nominations.  In several cases I have given in-depth reports of attempts to find sources and come up lacking.  Your comment is both a personal insult to my credibility and a demonstatable lie. Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In every case, your "attempt" seems to have been to avoid finding sources. In several cases, I located good citations to software that you claimed had no mention anywhere, with no more than two minutes of effort.  Moreover, in this deletionist mania, you conclude that every source the I find, or anyone else finds, must "not really count" because of one variety of special pleading or another.  It is plain an overwhelming bad faith to nominate scattershod for deletion with no effort to establish notability, but just an a priori mission to deny even obvious notability.  LotLE × talk  20:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That all sounds good, but... what about the notability of the topic under discussion? Is the best argument for keeping the article really WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:32, 22 February 2009 (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.