Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunetracker Radio Automation


 * 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, defaulting to the best redirect target, BeOS. bd2412 T 15:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tunetracker Radio Automation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:GNG. Most, if not all of the potential sources (Google) are clearly not independent. For example 1 is written like an advertisement; fast, lightweight, and stable, like the commercial BeOS operating system it was fashioned after is what this page describes the radio software as. There is also not a wide pool of any kind of source available; even on the first page of the google search, two copies of the wikipedia page on wikivisually and revolvy are shown as the 6th and 4th result respectively. Even if some suitable sources were found from Google, there won't be enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any mentions of this thing that are 1. reliable sources or 2. not written like advertisements. I think this is the closest thing, but that's not good. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Other sources I found so far: Radio World 2002 review ; Computer Music magazine (January 2005) article about internet radio stations: pp. 68-71 are mostly devoted to TuneTracker, but there are extensive quotes of author of said application. There may be more of this kind of coverage in computer music related published magazines frome the early 2000s. I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. A proposal: merge into BeOS? Given your sources, I'm leaning away from removing this material from the wiki, but I still don't know that it merits its own article. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Target article already mentions this application, so this may be a viable target. I will look for other sources, but I don´t think I will find more (BeNews could provide some short news - nothing to improve notability; there may be a review in some BeOS centered magazine, but it will be next to impossible to find relevant scans on the net). Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the archived website of the company behind this application is short notice about column on byte.com. Although that page is no longer accessible, author of BeOS related column (Scot Hacker) has his articles on his own webpage: and archived version is also on archive.org . Looks like solid source for notability. Pavlor (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Somewhat weak keep as there are good RS about this application, but not in the quantity I would like. Pavlor (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only reference that I can find to his product is from a site called Radio World (an industry trade journal notable enough to have its own WP article). However in Radio World's 2018 review of radio systems  it doesn't list Tunetracker as a major product (and it lists several).  In any of the reviews on Radio World about Tunetracker, I don't see anything saying that it is an important or an industry leading product.  Outside of Radio World, the coverage drops off to very obscure sources.  Article has been effectively unreferenced for several years now – author left WP after creating the article – and the only two links are SPAM to its own website.  This is PROMO of a non-notable product, making unsubstantiated claims, that fails any basic WP:GNG test. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. What about the sources I mentioned above (Computer Music magazine, byte.com)? Pavlor (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I could not find any link to them? Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Computer Music magazine (January 2005, pp 68-71), byte.com . Pavlor (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks . The Byte reference is from 2001 and there is no indication that Tunertracker was a leading product in the sector at that time?  The article on page 68–71 of the 2005 Computer Music Magazine is about the online radio space in general, and lists a range of software programs, of which Tunetracker is one?  While nobody denies the Tunetracker products existed, the issue is whether they are notable.  I think that Tunetracker is not notable now, but I am not sure Tunetracker was even particularly notable in 2001-05, outside of being one of number of software products in this area? thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, or, to be gracious, Detonate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (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.