Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SndControl

SndControl

 * 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only independent source is the MakeUseOf article, which is about the beta. The Chrome store falls under WP:USERG. Fails WP:GNG.

Also, does anyone else find it a touch coincidental that the product designed by someone from Oklahoma has an article created by someone whose username places them in OKlahoma, and that the article was defended out of nowhere with the sudden appearance of another Oklahoman? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okfreelancereporter You make some good points and I can see were you are coming from; however, I don't think its coincidental. Interest in local progress is common and that of a society based on your local events, which are notable for a community like Tulsa. While one might have an interest or belief in religion and mythology or occultism, or have an agenda based on ones world view, some information is based on technological progress not history. Progress being that a new technology, around since 2012 and changing how people interact with music, is notable. Other similar technologies like Streamus are Wikipedia compliant and this is no different. Pursuit of technology and exposing our children to these new developments (and exposing our peers) is important. Everyone has a voice, even those not supported by big money or the museums or academic institutions supported by big money. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines. In regards to citing self-published articles WP:SELFSOURCE, nothing here is unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. The Chrome Web Store is regulated by Google and the laws of the United States, which require statements to be true and factual. Chrome is a source that relies on itself and really is only not challenged because its owned by rich. Wikipedia is not about the rich, it's about the little guy and factual accuracy. Further, Google has technical experts that comb through the code to ensure that extensions are what they claim to be. Your comments are well noted, but I don't think this is a case for alarm or that anything harms or violates Wikipedia's terms. It appears to be furthering education and technological progress of society. Do what Hunter S. Thompson would do, edit it and make it better - don't kill it because it is different. In fact, The Secret War of Lisa Simpson is not notable to me or probably many people at all that are younger, but because people didn't protest its existence on Wikipedia, I learned something new today. This is all about learning and this furthers the mission of Wikipedia by introducing people to something worthy of notice (which is subjective by nature - error on the side of inclusion). Try SndControl (as I did when I first heard about it), it's notable. If you simply don't like it, write an opinion from a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Or simply edit it to make it better as others have already done, including myself. Progress. What do you think the greater harm would be of including this other than to watch it and make sure its neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and the facts can be verified against public sources? — Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, amidst that red-herring-filled filibuster that confused my user page for an article, I didn't see any truly independent reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia is not about the little guy, it is about sources. Find professional academic or journalistic articles about your product or we will delete the article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

okfreelancereporter and Ian.Thomson, I was simply trying to pass on information that I thought was interesting. okfreelancereporter thanks for the perspective and edits to try to help my slug meet the policy.Ian.Thomson thanks for pointing out how to make the article more reliable, I'll work on gathering some more sources and will re-read the policies. I have read many Wikipedia articles like Streamus how do they meet the policy without academic support? That's why I thought this was compliant because it essentially mirrors Streamus. What is an example of a source that is not a journal but reliable because I can go there first to help you be comfortable with the slug? Thanks in advance. southernpuppyOKtalk — Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Problems in existing articles do not justify problems in new articles.
 * 2) The Streamus article cites TechCrunch, CNET, and LifeHacker, which falls under journalistic sources. The SndControl article doesn't cite any independent news sources except the Make Use Of article.  A page that sells or distributes the product is not considered independent.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

okfreelancereporter (okfreelancereporter) It's your article southernpuppyOK, so whatever you think - that's not my issue. I still think this meets the rules and is consistent with the mission of Wikipedia and I'd like to hear the opinion of another editor. WP:NPOV Nevertheless, I have to ask, speaking of notarity: you wouldn't happen to be Ian Thomson (writer) or Ian Thomson (TV personality) Ian Thomson from the The Bachelorette? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okfreelancereporter (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:OWN: It is not southernpuppyOK's article, it is Wikipedia's to do with as we will, according to our policies and guidelines.
 * See also WP:OUTING: who I am is not relevant to this topic. I will entertain you and explain that no, I'm neither of those individuals, but further attempts to find personal information about me will result in you being blocked.  The reason I suggested that you and southernpuppyOK might be the same individual is that your writing styles and goals are similar.
 * See also WP:GNG -- This article has only one independent source. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Just not notable, lacks independent third party refs. Article seems to have been started by someone with a connection to the subject and is essentially promotional in nature. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references except for the makeuseof ref, as above. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage, and one independent ref is typically insufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (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.