- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoom Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
non-notable commercial software. no sources. news.google.com shows two hits in Russian and Chinese, automated translation looks like these do not meet WP:RS or WP:N (fleeting mention) standards. Miami33139 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed these ones in the archives [1]. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [2] One paragraph in a download directory is not notable.
- [3] one paragraph on download directory connected to a forum is not notable.
- [4] Helpdesk questions on web boards are not notable.
- [5] vulnerability reports are not notable.
- [6] passing mention, and also not even the same product, but referring to a kids toy. If that kids toys had an article, it would fail too!
- Blogs that review shareware in non-English languages are not notable.
- Reprints of any of the above are not notable.
- That covers the top ten links in the Google archive link you provided. You need to start doing a little more leg-work to improve articles with actual references instead of contesting every PROD and forcing them all on AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Nothing particularly noteworthy, groundbreaking, or outstanding about this player.. it ain't no Winamp.. just another among hundreds. So why !vote keep you ask? Because the inclusionist in me doesn't want the nominator going through List of media players and prod'ing everything in sight based on this precedent without doing any "legwork" of his own to find references. So unless some consensus is reached on the inherent nobility of unremarkable media players I'm gonna go with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
- I've been going through dozens of lists of software, including List of media players, finding things that simply are not notable. Writing software is not unique. Getting it on a download site and having some blogs write about it is not notable. These things are not inherently notable and that is the point. Miami33139 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Finding things that simply are not notable" - Until someone else finds reliable sources and then all of a sudden they are? As in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xfce?? Instead of going through the lists and prod'ing things you deem non-notable why not go through the lists and try to prove that they are? Seems like a much more productive way to improve the encyclopedia. OlEnglish (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD debate on Xfce clearly shows that when the sources are provided I'll withdraw the nomination. Even in cases without sources, there are things obviously notable just lacking references and I've done some cleanup or source adding while going through the lists, for instance CD Player (Windows) was written poorly, and I cleaned it up, in other cases I have added references when I knew something about it. My process is not deletionist. This article, Zoom Player is not notable, never has been, and as an obsolete product, it never will be. This AfD is about this article but you are objecting for entirely different reasons than the validity of this article. If you would like to revive discussions to make a usable version of Wikipedia:Notability (software) I would be happy to work with you but vanity projects that end up on a handful of download libraries backed up by blog reviews aren't going to cut it. Miami33139 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Finding things that simply are not notable" - Until someone else finds reliable sources and then all of a sudden they are? As in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xfce?? Instead of going through the lists and prod'ing things you deem non-notable why not go through the lists and try to prove that they are? Seems like a much more productive way to improve the encyclopedia. OlEnglish (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nom You seem to be confusing verifiability and notability. If there are no reliable sources and none can be found, than that is the deciding issue. Notability only comes into play when things are actually verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Software without reliable sources and proof of notability = delete. Spiesr (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even though I liked it before discovering that VLC is the One True Way. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not most prevalent audio software, but well past notability threshhold. LotLE×talk 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base that statement on our notability criteria, not personal feelings. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (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.