Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcriber


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcriber

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

Non-notable software. Searching for more sources is difficult because there are multiple pieces of software named Transcriber. The Transcriber in Windows Mobile gets more notability hits than this, as does similar software in Palm OS. This linguistic aid software does not pass WP:N or WP:V.Miami33139 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong or speedy keep. The random nominations by this editor are simply bad faith efforts to delete all stub articles about audio software, for reasons apparent only to him.  I added to the article references to several academic articles about this widely used and well established software.  LotLE × talk  22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for some references, but please stop attacking me and accusing me of bad faith. I'd suggest to anyone looking at the sources to actually read them and consider whether they are reliable sources to determine notability or minor niche sources before deciding to keep based on them. Just because software exists does not make it notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I like academic journals as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure that every academic software package should have a page. Papers written about that software by those that wrote it are acceptable as they are (in this case) peer reviewed.  But I find the indepencent nature of the sources questionable.  If I knew where to merge, I'd suggest such a thing. But I don't, so keep. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability inferred by the scientific articles. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:44, 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.