Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mp3nity


 * 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. Many of the keep !votes concede that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and make a claim for "inherent" notability based on the "popularity" or widespread use of the product. Such an approach (setting aside notability guidelines) requires a firm consensus and there is none here. The consensus is to delete, on the basis that the subject fails the relevant notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mp3nity

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable product, no links to reliable sources, Google mainly returns links to download sites or cracks, torrents etc.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of sources and the creator's argument that this article is superior to Winamp and Windows Media Player and they should be deleted if this page is.  — Soap  —  13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep We already had a similar conversation yesterday with other users about deletion and an administrator allowed it to stay, is this going to be a daily thing now? If you haven't personally heard of this software before it doesn't mean it's Non-notable. It's been circulating online since 2002, it has a strong fan base, you can find talk about it on thousands of webpages, look how far the reviews go back on download.com, and yes, like all popular software, some users request cracks for it on illegal sites, it doesn't make it subject to deletion, quiet the opposite, it makes it more notable. To —Soap—, go check, most articles about software have virtually no sources at all, I could include more sources if that should settle it. And where did I claim that this article is superior to Winamp and Windows Media Player??? I simply said that this article is written in the same style as the other software articles in the categories that I mentioned. And you name the biggest as examples, Winamp and Windows Media Player, how long have those been on wikipedia? Mine is just one night, give it some time to grow. Greeen (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is silly, but I'm not sure how to vote, is my vote counted now? I don't think it is because that stats page is not changing, please help. Greeen (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not work based on votes. If there is enough reason to delete this article, it will be deleted regardless of how many people vote to keep it. The closing administrator is likely to disregard all discussions that are in violation of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, unless those discussion produce a compelling reason. Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the info, I didn't know that, it makes sense. Also, I can see from J.M.'s talk page that you're a big fan of his, it's nice that you're there for your buddy, but it's not cool that you're overwhelming this page with objections to every other comment, so that it would seem to the admistrator that J.M.'s opinion is the dominant one while it's not. Come on guys, play fair. Greeen (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Greeen, I already warned you that you should stop making personal comments. Secondly, FleetCommand is not my fan, we have a long history of serious disagreement, and I never asked him to "come here for me". It was his free choice, and anyone on Wikipedia is free to comment on whatever they want.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right. J. M. and I have never been friends of bosom, though that does not mean that I should nurture a grudge against him and hesitate from requesting his valuable service on Wikipedia's behalf in the field that he is good at, (i.e. Multimedia). On the contrary, it is everyone's duty to acknowledge that Wikipedia is not about winning and employ the sacred power of forgetting to deal with painful parts of the past disputes. As for filing objection in AfD, everyone has the right to do so, as long as the objections do not go against Don't bludgeon the process. I am personally of the opinion that my objecting a person who says "this article is notable" (under the circumstances that the article fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability Guideline) is completely legal. However, to make this discussion fair, I grant that I'm talking about myself and my own comments and not those of J. M.  Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal Attack? Warned me? Friends of bosom? What are you guys talking about? Obviously, you're taking this way too personally. I was mainly objecting to what turned out to be, since you understand guidelines so well, a WP:WABBITSEASON. Repeating the same argument over and over just doesn't make it any stronger. Re-pasting it after every positive comment will only waste the administrator's time rather than delude him/her. Secondly (and unimportantly), "big fan" was a reference to the "Lord of the multimedia section of Wikipedia" greeting, unless that's J.M's official wiki-title. Greeen (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, dear Greeen, I did understand that you are referring to that certain greeting; hence came my explanation. As for a personal attack, I personally see nothing wrong with you. But let us cease this discussion now and focus on the matter at hand. Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the issue at hand here is "should this subject article be kept?" and I believe so. It is not written as an advertisment and seems to me to go over the features of the software itself.  It could use more sources, and independent sources at that--but I see that (in this case anyway) as being a content issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection You are wrong. The issue at hand here is that the article fails to meet the requirements of Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and fails to introduce Reliable sources. Maybe re-reading the nominator's statement help you.
 * Response I'm reasonably sure that the issue at hand for a discussion at "Articles for deletion" is if the article should be deleted or not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never deny that what you said in your last message is literally correct. However, what I called wrong is your judgment of article's eligibility for Wikipedia. You said that you believe it should be kept because "it is not written as an advertisement [sic] and seems to me to go over the features of the software itself." And I said this fact has nothing to do with the nomination. This article is not accused of being advertisement in the initial nomination; but it is deemed as failing WP:GNG. Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is advertising: an all-in-one batch Music organizer, File renamer, Tag editor, Audio converter, CD ripper, Lyrics finder, Playlist maker, that supports most popular audio and video formats.  Google News, Books, Scholar find zilch that looks like a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Its a well know utility, which has been around and used for donkies years, with 10's-100's of thousands of users. Clearly passes notability. The article is a wee bit spammy, needs work, but no reason to delete it. scope_creep (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Its a well know utility, which has been around and used for donkies years, with 10's-100's of thousands of users." This is irrelevant, popularity does not establish notability as required by the official Wikipedia notability guideline. The only thing that would make it notable is if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources". And so far, nobody has been able to show that.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article establishes notability and google confirms. Article needs a clean up though. Handschuh-talk to me 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection You seem to have posted your message in the wrong AfD page. The article clearly fails to comply with the requirements of Wikipedia General Notability Guideline as it introduces no secondary reliable source whatsoever. Fleet Command (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment J. M., When you examine and compare popularity and notabily for a big enough population size, you see that fundamentally they are the same. scope_creep (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which, as I say again, is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia can only have articles that satisfy the requirement in the official notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". If a subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it does not meet the official Wikipedia requirement and therefore cannot have its own article on Wikipedia. These are the basic, official Wikipedia rules, which are non-negotiable. The official Wikipedia guideline even explicitly says that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". Which means all arguments presented here based on alleged popularity are bogus. So far, nobody has been able to even back up the claim that the software is popular (even though, again, popularity does not make it notable for Wikipedia), and secondly, nobody has been able to show that the product has received significant coverage in reputable sources.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought popularity had already been taken care of and proven. As for notability, when we talk multimedia/online software, unless we talk about Microsoft or Apple, the only reliable sources you'll find are software and multimedia websites, and you can find a page about this program in every single one of those websites, and that's notability. On another note, I think you made your point over and over again, it's been noted. Why don't we leave this space for fresh opinions. Thank you. Greeen (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, popularity has not ben taken care of and proven. As for notability, you cannot reinterpret the official Wikipedia rules. They are clear, explicit (e.g. they explicitly say that popularity alone does not mean notability) and apply to all articles including software-related articles. Nobody has been able to show significant coverage in reputable sources (for example books, articles in magazines etc.), because they apparently don't exist. The fact that the software is available for download at various download sites means exactly nothing for notability on Wikipedia. This is, again, clearly written in the official Wikipedia rules and guidelines.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And as for making my point over and over again&mdash;I'm only replying to invalid arguments. When people stop giving bogus reasons that go against the official Wikipedia rules over and over again and start offering valid arguments, I will leave this space for fresh opinions. So far, nobody has offered anything yet.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article fails to establish its notability as required by Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and hence does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per popularity doesn't confer notability. All of the current references are to sites or pages controlled by the software's publisher. Google searches seem to bring up exclusively cracks and downloads. Page has RS issues. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP notabily guidelines are just that, guidelines, not policies or rule of law as set in stone. They are meant to be interpreted and applied, not translated verbatim. WP isn't some religious tome, and we are not fundamentalists. Popularity does establish notability given a big enough population, and it's used by 100's of thousands of folk. So Strong Keep. These software packages and their ecosystems aren't that well connected to traditional media, so your not going to find many links to them, and that's where WP fails in this aspect. It's good encyclopedic knowledge and well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not place to do so. You can discuss the changes on the policy/guideline talk pages, and seek consensus. Until then, the policies and guidelines apply. Secondly, the official policies and guidelines are not arbitrary. They are interconnected. When the official Wikipedia guideline says that popularity does not mean notability for Wikipedia (even though it may do elsewhere), it says so for a good reason. The reason is one of the most important rules of Wikipedia: verifiability. When someone here says "this software if popular, so strong keep", it is something anyone (for example a spammer) can do here, as it costs nothing. Proving the claim (by offering reliable sources) is something completely different, something that Wikipedia is based on. Nobody has been able to do that here. One of the most basic rules of Wikipedia is that all articles must be based on reliable third-party sources. The official verifiability policy explicitly says: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is not a case of "not finding many links to them". This is a case of not finding a single one. Nothing at all. Neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It clearly says that "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." So no, core Wikipedia policies are not negotiable, you cannot reinterpret them. Because neutral point of view means verifiability, which means notability, because notability needs verifiability (i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources), which is needed for neutral point of view. All these core Wikipedia policies are just variants of each other, meaning the same thing, for the same reason. Basing a "strong keep" vote on a premise that the most basic, non-negotiable Wikipedia policies do not matter and do not have to be taken into account, while refusing to offer any proof for anything, is a severe misunderstanding of the values Wikipedia is based on.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Oh yeah, this is definitely popular. Now, Google Books does return no books for this article, which only makes it not the most notable subject according to the guidelines, nevertheless, we can still fairly admit that it is notable enough to have its own article, specially that many programs like this are already accepted. 74.100.240.187 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection: Notability required evidence. This evidence is absent. Fleet Command (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This anonymous IP address is a single-purpose account used solely for voting in this discussion, which means the vote should not be taken into account, as it is probably just a proxy spammer in disguise.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment J. M. Dude we know you want to fervently delete it, so why don't you follow form, stop trying to raise objections and let us discuss it. scope_creep (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the link in my objection, you can find out that identifying and tagging single-purpose accounts in deletion discussions is a normal procedure on Wikipedia. There is a tendency in this discussion to influence the result with vote stacking, cheating and other dirty tactics. The above vote from the single-purpose IP address is most likely a vote from a proxy spammer with connections to the product (who also happens to use invalid arguments like "other stuff exists)". Tagging anonymous spammers is, again, a standard, documented way of dealing with them.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The IP has made literally no other edits. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 14:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response registration is not required to participate, neither is experience (I wish they'd change that too... but they haven't).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody says that registration is required. However, when the only edit that an anonymous IP address ever does on Wikipedia is voting in a deletion discussion, suddenly appearing out of nowhere, you can be pretty sure that they're not honest about their true motivations and that it is a vote that should be disqualified, especially as they just repeat the same invalid arguments that were presented here before, disregarding the official Wikipedia policies. Anyone who has an interest in keeping an article on Wikipedia alive (like the product author and/or the article creator, who also happens to advertise the product on other Wikipedia articles, like Greeen), can vote multiple times in a discussion by using anonymous IP addresses. It's too easy and doesn't cost anything, that's why things like this happen very often on Wikipedia. And that's why the Single-purpose account article warns against this, as the anonymous IP addresses may be sock puppets (which is forbidden on Wikipedia), and the admins are free to ignore their votes. The result of a deletion discussion should always be based on the validity of presented arguments, not on the number of votes: "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." All arguments presented from people who voted "Keep" are just variants of "Keep, because I say so", without offering a single proof that the product is indeed notable.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this was "not a vote" and "anyone on Wikipedia is free to comment on whatever they want". Greeen (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's any actual evidence of sockpuppetry, I'd welcome it for review and would suspect a block be put on the IP address. As for the intentions of the individual making the comment, you're "probably" right but that means you "could" be wrong.  But even more importantly, as Greeen has pointed out... it doesn't matter anyway because it's not a "vote" -- the value comes from the content of the comments provided.  If the closing admin wants to value that, yay.  If not, so be it.  I trust the admins enough on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag is appropriate, but JM's comments seem to assume bad faith on the part of the annonymous editor. Can we please try to maintain decorum in AfD debates? Handschuh-talk to me 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment J. M. It wasn't the anonymous account, I was commenting on. I agree it looks suspicious, but you must assume good faith. However, it was the fact that your not following form for Afd nomination. Usually when raising an article for Afd, the editor in question waits for the for the Afd to be discussed before a decision is taken by him/her on a admin. But what you have done throughout this discussion is raise an objection after objection for every entry and not allowed the discussion to proceed naturally. That's wrong. scope_creep (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment was added as a reply to the "anonymous vote" thread, so naturally I assumed you were commenting on that. Anyway, it is not true that I raise an objection for every entry. Simple statistics: there are 9 "votes" here (excluding mine), I objected to 2 of them (and this includes tagging the anonymous IP address). Plus, when you look closely at my comments, you can see that many of them are simply replies to messages directed at me (like the helpful suggestions to leave this place), which is exactly what I am doing in this comment, too. When someone says something to me, I reply.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm on trial. To clarify some things, I made a few edits previously, but maybe my IP changed, I don't know, but anyways, I'm not an avid Wikipedia Editor. I stumbled upon the Mp3nity article, I saw the delete banner and I had something to say. Sorry. 74.100.240.187 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry. You comments are welcome and they will be given consideration by the closing admin. Handschuh-talk to me 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete on the merits, as I'm not finding sufficient independent sourcing to show notability. I'd also add, to the nominator and others above me - cool it, guys. J.M., your points have been clearly made and are well taken, and it would be impossible for the closing admin to miss them - no need to engage with every single editor wishing to keep the article. We're inching toward more heat than light on this one, so can everyone take a deep breath and calm down? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no single WP:RS provided to prove WP:NOTABILITY. Ipsign (talk) 13:50, 19 November 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.