Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAM Broadcaster

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAM Broadcaster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

SAM Broadcaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable internet broadcasting application, appears to be written by someone involved in its development which would as such fail WP:COI. Reliable sources covering this software were not found upon a web search; only WP:SPS, the software producer's own website, and this very Wikipedia page. The results that were returned strongly cast doubt on the reputability of this software and its developer(s). As such I firmly believe this article has no place on Wikipedia. Joyce-stick (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:BEFORE search returns little in the way of WP:SIGCOV, with most of what turns up being passing mentions (eg. Popular Science, Entrepreneur's Guide to Second Life, Social Media Commerce For Dummies) and very little in the way of recent coverage. More coverage may exist in older offline print sources, but as it stands this is unlikely to meet the WP:GNG unless better sources are unearthed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 15 June 2022 (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.