Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinf (2nd nomination)


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Zinf
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

here is no evidence of notability for this software. References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all! Reference 4 is simply an WP:OR assertion. Reference 1 is a promotional message in a newsgroup. There is no coverage in reliable sources demonstrated. Miami33139 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First, would the nominator care to explain why he nominates this article once more, when his last nomination less than a year ago failed. The question is -- WP:NOTAGAIN and why the already overburdened AfD circuit should be strained once again. Second, it is a so-called "half-truth" that "References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all!" - the references do contain the text string "FreeAmp", and Zinf is a continuation of FreeAmp, as clearly explained in the article, and easily verified in a basic search.  Third, to those who "cannot find coverage", I will say:
 * The Linux cookbook: tips and techniques for everyday use By Michael Stutz p475 picks seven of "the better" music players, and includes Zinf.
 * UNIX: the complete reference By Kenneth H. Rosen, Douglas A. Host p1051 - Free preview is limited, I cannot assess if it is in-depth mention, but it is more than passing mention.
 * A PhD thesis on Open Source Software Development examines three cases, amongst them Zinf, because it has "an innovative way of keeping track of ones music collection"
 * FreeAmp was used in a test-setup in MSc. project on Quality of Service for IP Networks in Theory and Practice
 * FreeAmp and Zinf were likewise used in a MSc project Intelligent Multicast Internet Radio
 * ZInf is also used in this thesis ANÁLISIS Y MODELADO DE “MULTICAST” INTERDOMINIO PARA EL SOPORTE DE SERVICIOS DE VIDEO
 * FreeAmp was picked for a streaming experiment testing of a prototype of sorts in THE DESIGN OF A FLEXIBLY INTERWORKING DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK - Proceedings of EUNICE, 2000 -
 * Add to this that Gsearch Zinf FreeAmp returns about 41k hits, indicative that it has some popularity, supportbase, general interest, ... or whatever.
 * Keeping a short article on this software seem to be perfectly legit for an encyclopedia. The basic problem is that it takes a few minutes or less to nominate an article for deletion, about the same or shorter not to find any sources, and disproportionately more time to challenge it  Power.corrupts (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The last nomination did not provide any new sources, just WP:ILIKEIT claims. I copied the deletion rationale here, from another AfD contributor there, actually. That is JLL's response. Your basic accusation here is that I did not examine and look for references. I have looked for references, and I found them lacking. You found more references.
 * Let's examine your references.


 * Linux Cookbook, one sentence does not confer notability
 * Unix Complete Reference, a passing mention of one paragraph in an entire chapter of one paragraph descriptions of available software. Appearing in a list of things does not confer notability.
 * Open Source Software Development Edwards.dk Thesis - does not confer notability, millions of theses are written each year, typically read by a dozen people at best. The Zinf specific information consists of how it was installed on Linux compared to the ease of use of the installation on Windows. Even if this was a mainstream book, this would not be a significant mention.
 * Quality of Service for IP Networks in Theory and Practice - does not confer notability. This is another thesis. And these sources say "freeamp was used" in the footnotes. That's it.
 * Intelligent Multicast Internet Radio. - does not confer notability. Another thesis. Mentions of Zinf includes the sentence "Zinf is an audio player for Linux and Win32" and one screenshot.
 * ANÁLISIS Y MODELADO DE “MULTICAST” INTERDOMINIO PARA EL SOPORTE DE SERVICIOS DE VIDEO - does not confer notability. Another thesis. Mentions of Zinf are three sentences that says Zinf is an audio player. Zinf is a continuation of Freeamp. Zinf was able to decode an IP stream in real time, plus the download link. That's it.
 * THE DESIGN OF A FLEXIBLY INTERWORKING DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK - "Windows based RTP aware mp3 players, such as freeamp", plus the download link is the entirety of this mention.
 * What is clear here is that of these seven references you have provided is that none of them is about Zinf. Four of them are theses, which might make good reliable sources if they actually said anything about the product. They DO NOT. The other academic reference sounds promising too, except freeamp is not even the subject of the single sentence in which it appears in that source. The two books contain one sentence and one paragraph respectively. All of these references are why Notability requires significant sources about the subject. You have provided a list of trivial mentions in sources about other things.
 * I do agree with you that finding references and writing an article about them is hard work. That is why the edit page for a new article says in bold that an article not based on references will be quickly deleted. That sucks for the author, but that is the way it is. Miami33139 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Linux Cookbook - being picked as one of the seven best players is a 3rd-party judgement of notability. Devoting 1/3 of a PhD thesis to studying the evolution of Zinf is a 3rd-party judgement of notability. Are you really sure that "millions" of PhD theses are produced every year?  But our disagreement here is at the heart of WP:N, precisely because it is vague and subjective, for what "significant coverage" anyway. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thesis does not provide 1/3rd of it's coverage to Zinf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I click on the link at the top of the AFD for Google Books, and find over 700 results. Some of them are about this software.  iPod and iTunes is the book at the top, giving it notable coverage.  Of course, for the software to be mentioned at all in so many books, it must be notable(worthy of noting).   D r e a m Focus  01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Sigh.  I just added five references, there are more out there as well about this product.--Milowent (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the arguments at the first AFD being WP:ILIKEITs, and though sufficient time has passed so that WP:NOTAGAIN does not apply, the relisting HAS resulted in additional sources being added to address concerns from his first nomination and from his second. Kudo's to those who used this nomination as a forced WP:CLEANUP per WP:AFTER.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those aren't reliable sources, those are download directories. How does adding links to download sites show notability? Miami33139 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Available sources are not all download directories. For instance, there's iPod and iTunes by Guy Hart-Davis and Debian GNU/linux in der Praxis: Anwendungen, Konzepte, Werkzeuge by Wulf Alex.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs and two screenshots in each book. Or, what we call trivial coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Though 2 decent paragraphs are slightly more than a trivial listing, sources need themselves be significant only if notability is dependent upon those sources. What is being recognized at this second AFD is that the article CAN and IS being improved... just as guideline encourages.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no basis to revisit the first AfD; and the sources in the article in its present state clearly demonstrate notability. TJRC (talk) 23:09, 24 November 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.