Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snack audio library


 * 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   keep per evidence given of wide use.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Snack audio library

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

Non-notable software library. Article has no sources other than a link to the home page. No hits on google news. Searching for documentation (like textbooks using this software library) on Amazon revealed nothing obvious. Generalized Google search did not really find anything either, 128 total hits for "Snack audio library". Books.google.com has ZERO results. Miami33139 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (or speedy keep even). This is overwhelming notable and widely used software.  The nomination borders on bad faith, being done by an editor who is completely scattershod in nominating every article on audio software he can find for deletion, on no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Many of the article so nominated deserve to be improved, but there are tags for that that are far more appropriate than AfD.  LotLE × talk  00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quit stalking me. My nomination is based on core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Subjects of articles must be notable. Information in articles must be verifiable. This article fails both of those ideas. I searched Google News, Amazon, and a general Google search looking for sources that would make a notability claim.  I put those searches into the nomination and your claim that this is bad faith is therefore taken as an insult.  128 Google hits is not notable. but you are welcome to find sources to back up a claim of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominating Snack is about as wildly off-kilter as your earlier nomination of Xfce. I have no idea how you managed to do a search that found so few hits, but here's a better one to show "the Google test": Links to the snack homepage]. It really appears that you cannot discern the difference between articles that need improvement and ones that lack notability.  I really wish you would read WP:NOTE to understand this!  LotLE × talk  01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I moved the article to the more appropriate title Snack Sound Toolkit. If you search on that phrase, Google shows many more hits, and that is the full proper name.  Calling it an "audio library" is a correct description but not a proper name.  Moreover, the proper name was already what was given in boldface in the lead of the article.


 * Delete - counting Google hits doesn't establish notability. I could find no coverage in reliable sources.  I can find lots of blog posts and such.  Of course, I can be persuaded to change my mind if reliable sources can be demonstrated. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added two academic citations, and one commercial one. Please take a look at the current article (or even try to improve it further).  LotLE × talk  20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "For the speech processing part we have built Tcl/Tk scripts in combination with Snack Sound Toolkit, a public domain toolkit developed at KTH." That is the entirety of the reference in the academic citations. That is not a reference to notability.  This is a brief passing mention.  The academic citations are not about Snack, they merely mention that the researchers used it.  This is no more notable than the brand of computer they used.  This still fails the requirements of Notability: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail.' Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to go with LotLE here, Snack is quite notable in the audio analysis field. I've seconded you on some of the other things you've pulled into AfD because they were borderline notable (i.e., some of the unknown media players) but you need to do a bit of homework before plunging things like these into the deletion process. I think everyone agrees that removing things from Wikipedia that need removing is as valuable as adding, but removal is something that needs to be done with more care. Of course the fact that the notability guidelines for software are quite broken doesn't help much. § FreeRangeFrog 00:03, 21 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.