Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unix Amiga Delitracker Emulator


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unix Amiga Delitracker Emulator

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

Not notable. no claim to notability, unreferenced, orphaned, only bots have edited this for two years. news.google.com has zero hits for "Unix Amiga Delitracker Emulator" Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * What would be notable? uade is widely used. At http://freshmeat.net/projects/uade/ its popularity is 2655/45000. 1/45000 would be the most popular project. Uade's discussion forum at http://board.kohina.net/index.php?c=5 has 1450 posts, and it has seen quite a few people. The fact is: uade is relevant when it comes to music made for Amiga computers. No doubt it's a niche thing, it's small, but still relevant for that topic. Also, see article MOD_(file_format). uade is relevant for the mod format. It is the most accurate player among competing players for playing 4 channel mods that I'm aware of (due to emulating original Amiga software, better hardware sound model, resampling etc). Surely news.google.com search is not a policy for Wikipedia, is it? You will no doubt then mark a thousand other software projects as unnotable. First, go mark "DeliPlayer" article for deletion. Even its domain name has vanished.. I oppose deletion of either article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shd (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One more comment, the article is refenced, see Module file for example. Shd (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am filtering a lot of software categories and DeliPlayer is on my list to investigate. To answer the question "What would be notable?" If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Miami33139 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do independent discussion forums of the subject matter? UADE has been discussed on many forums, it is also included in some GNU/Linux distributions (such as Gentoo). 91.155.190.237 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if the authors of the discussions both are identifiable and have good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Discussion forum postings authored by people known only by pseudonyms, or solely by the IP addresses of their computers, are worth zero.  Discussion forum postings by people who do not have known good reputations for fact checking and accuracy are also worth zero.  There's a great deal of the blind leading the blind on WWW and Usenet discussion fora.  Wikipedia wants only reliable sources, from identifiable people that have known expertise in the field or known good reputations for making sure that what they write and publish is correct, with what they publish having been through a process of peer review and fact checking. We also want independent sources to ensure that the information is unbiased and not advertising or self-promotion, and to ensure that the subject has in fact escaped its creator(s)/author(s)/inventor(s) and actually become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge in the first place.  Knowledge that only the subject or the subject's creator/author/inventor knows is not suitable for an encyclopaedia.  It's not, yet, human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be notable software.  Nomination appears to be part of scattershod nomination of all audio software by nominating editor.  LotLE × talk  22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't keep things because they "appear" to be notable. We show multiple references to reliable sources that document the subject of the article.  My nominations are not scattershot - I am only nominating the ones that do not have adequate sourcing to show notability, usually after a quick searches for those references myself.  Miami33139 (talk) 23:20, 17 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.