Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ml iPod


 * 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. No sources provided to establish the claimed notability. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ml iPod

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

Article does not establish notability. Software has been abandoned by its first authors for native support in Winamp, so any claim to notability was in the past. News.google.com shows 9 hits, 6 are repeats, two are German translations, and one from Wired. All are blurb length mentions, not even minor coverage. No major edits in more than six months. Tagged as unreferenced for more than six months. Largest section reads like a how-to and tips guide. Except for a comparison chart, this article has no incoming links. One sentence "An alternative plugin, Ml iPod also allows iPod management" could be added to the Winamp article. Miami33139 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:Notability if something had notability originally it does not lose that notability after time. I'd like to see a citation that the existence of this plugin prompted Winamp to include native iPod support in their product which would make this into a strong keep.Raitchison (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources show that it EVER had notability? It did not. Miami33139 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — no notability established, no reliable sources (no awards won, no major reviews, no published citations, etc). Minor plugin that was superseded by native functionality in parent software. --GreyCat (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. Any software that allows something other than iTunes to talk to an iPod is probably notable, but sourcing is really needed. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that? There are dozens of software apps that manage the iPod without iTunes.  Being on that list is not notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I think the same as Stifle, without sources the article does not establish notability, and can therefore be deleted. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merely being out of development or superceded by other software does not make it unnotable. Cynical (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What made it notable in the first place? Miami33139 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is notable in that it's one of the few WinAMP plugins that will work with the new 4th gen Nano.  It will become even more relevant in the future, and reports that it's no longer being developed are incorrect.  In fact, it just had a major release.  It is currently the preeminent non-iTunes interface for the iPod.  And according to wikipedia: when in doubt, keep. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You assert five facts. All unsourced.  Just like the article.  Wikipedia default is to remove unsourced material. Miami33139 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (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.