Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaile (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exaile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason for notability stated or found. Of the 5 links in the references section, at the time of writing, 4 return page not found errors. Of the sites they are sourced from, I'm not sure how many could be treated as independent and/or reliable. Reference #1 is the product's official site. Reference #2 appears to little beyond a package list for Ubuntu. #3 appears to be a blog.

Searching on the Internet found only one or two mentions in sources that could be used as references.

The article seems to have a chequered history at best:

• It was previously deleted at AfD for the same reason on 1 Feb 2009.
• Re-created less than 2 months later. User:Wwwwolf denied a WP:CSD G4 request with an edit summary of "Which deletion discussion???" and added a single links as a demonstration of notability. The next day he appeared to change his mind and re-directed the article to List of Linux audio software.
• The article was restored for a second time by an anon user in August 2009
• WP: CSD G6 request was denied by User:DESiegel in January 2010
• Article was tagged for notability in January 2011.The tag was removed by User:Pantergraph 8 hours later with summary "notability well established"

Given the apparent unnotability of the subject coupled with speed that tags have been removed in the past, I feel that AfD is probably going to be the best place to decide once and for all if a) it is notable and b) If it is, push those who insist it is notable into asserting that notability on the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add: For completeness I'll add web archive links to ref#4 and ref #5. As I think these are the only significant sources currently on the page. Both appear to be reviews. In particular, I'll note that the title of the BrightHub review is perhaps a little misleading. Its title talks about "Awesomeness", however the review goes on to discuss the package in terms of "average". Pit-yacker (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: even with those references it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I added another ref (Softpedia) from the previous AfD. By the way, the previous AfD is very dubious: the voting were in favor of keeping both argument- and number-wise, the closing note is puzzling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY STRONG KEEP i like this article i learned lots.2.25.129.61 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Ignoring WP:ILIKEIT, this contribution from the above IP came in the middle of a half hour long spate of edits that were almost all vandalism see here Pit-yacker (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I though it was a kind of sarcasm about my comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Exaile has been featured in a number of blogs focusing on open source software, for instance OMG! Ubuntu - [1], Linux Journal - [2], PC World - [3], Unixmen - [4]. Clearly a notable piece of software. Pewfly (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just barely sufficient sourcing. Pages not being available are a problem, but if the reference was there once, it is probably re-findable. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.