Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ServeStream

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ServeStream

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

Non-notable app. This looks like a great app, it appears to work well for the many people who use it and they like it. It does, however, not appear to have received the level of in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG. It may be there are sources out there in non-English languages or maybe under a different name, but I'm not seeing them. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the world will recognize the genius of the app shortly; if that's the case I'd encourage the creator to ask for a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be a fine app but it isn't notable, though. CeesBakker (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the WP:NSOFT guidelines, I believe this is notable as it is significant to the field as evidenced by having >50,000 users in the last month (on the google play store which is a non-primary source). If you do not see this as sufficient for notability, remember that the WP:NSOFT guidelines specify that "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown". It is also discussed in the following "reliable sources" that discuss various android programs. Teeks99 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the WP:NSOFT is an essay (=personal opinion of the author) and not a guideline (=en wikipedia policy). An attempt was made to write a notability guideline for software, but it failed to reach consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, WP:NSOFT is an opinion, not a guideline and citing a WP:BIGNUMBER would not necessarily confer "significance" anyway. Of the four sources above, most could not be considered "significant coverage" of the subject. Regardless, a couple of them are user generated by a "William Seemann" and the others note "William Seemann" is actually the developer of the software in question. The article in question here was written by User:Wseemann. I don't think I need to get my +2 goggles of x-ray seeing out to connect the WP:COI dots. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The four sources above all seem to meet the standard set in WP:GNG. Significant: "address the subject in detail", they all have lots of details about how the software works; "more than a trivial mention" those are pages dedicated to this subject. Reliable: These are all popular sources for news/software/info about the category (android apps). Sources: They are all secondary sources (as is google). Independent: they work with many apps and aren't tied to any particular app, nor the author. Teeks99 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree and I think that is a flawed interpretation of WP:GNG. They (all of them) include exactly the same text - probably release notes distributed with the software. If not, three of them have copied the first which means, editorially, they are not independent. I would be inclined to think the notes were developed by the company / creator. Either way, they are clearly not reliable sources at all. They certainly couldn't be considered "significant coverage". Besides which, they are all the same text, so could only ever be considered "one source" as per WP:N, even if we could get past all the other issues. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you are correct, the article was written by me, William Seemann. None of the cited pages in this thread or the main article were authored by me. I have no account or control over the content published on those sites. What "constitutes" notable software? The arguments behind marking this page for deletion seem arbitrary. Wseemann (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes notable software? See General Notability Guideline. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first "reference" in the list above says "ServeStream" / "by William Seemann" though I accept that might be in reference to the software itself, rather than the written text, as is the case with the others. It's a moot point, really - the download points all basically carry the same description, couldn't be considered editorially independent and (if they were a "source" at all) should probably be considered one source as per WP:N. These are basically descriptions of the product on sites where you can download it, not "significant coverage" in "reliable sources". The comment above also confirms Wikipedia is being used for WP:PROMO. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "by" portion is the author of the software. The software is written by me, hence "by William Seemann". The article(s) name me as the author of the software, not the article. Also, my comment in no way implies I'm using Wikipedia for anything other than it's intended purpose, to inform people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wseemann (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I said - happy to accept they were posted by someone else and that the software is written by you. But they are still ostensibly the same text which must have come from someone along with the software itself. Four independent websites did not list the software and come up with exactly the same text independently. Would strongly suggest you have a read of WP:PROMO #4 before telling others to "do more research". Stalwart111 (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth bearing in mind that the WP:COI is not actually relevant in a AfD; we're judging the article solely against WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally with a balanced headcount and mediocre sources, I'd be inclined to close as "no consenses", but the sources are more like lousy than mediocre to me, and the headcount suffers from small number statistics, so another go-round seems worthwhile to me. Wily D 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references above all seem to be review sites, which list many other app. There are 200 audio and music apps reviewed on AppBrain, so listing there does not give an indication of notability to me.--Salix (talk): 15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no independent significant coverage about this app. The AppBrain link just shows me a link to a directory entry and no actual editorial review. Ditto for Androidzoom, Androidpit, and Android.informer which are all essentially software directory listings providing a download link and a way for users to submit reviews. Those are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - And there was an additional review listed in the article which was not mentioned, but the blog for a 2nd year comp sci major is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 26 October 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.