Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreqTweak

FreqTweak

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for rescue... perhaps Joe the nominator could help especially after joining the WP:ARS ;-) I am running out of time for today. --Mokhov (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am good at searching for sources and I had no luck hence the nomination. Free software usually doesn't get significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seem to have found some; I'll put them into the article within a few minutes. Note, I am not claiming they are sufficient yet, but at least some for starters... I'll update this entry when I am done. --Mokhov (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added 4 references I've found as suggested by Google and overall copy-edited the article. A book, conference proceedings, a Master's thesis and a technical report from various places mention it. I think it is quite significant academic coverage available for the said free software. Please have a look. If it's still not enough to show significance, well, I did my part :-), I'll let the others do theirs. --Mokhov (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep is therefore my vote. --Mokhov (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's real software and the article is structurally fine. Why delete it? --AStanhope (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When Joe Chill nominated it, it was not "structurally fine" and had no references, infobox, etc. Joe's main concern was lack of references showing significant coverage asserting notability of the software, which I tried to find and cite. While the software is real and perhaps notable to you and me (BTW, as you may have guessed I am for keeping the article), the burden of proof of the notability is on the editors. I did my part in trying rescuing the article by editing it and adding the refs., so perhaps you could too? ;-) --Mokhov (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C'mon, people, the requirement for notability is well known. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I'm less than amused by downloading megabytes of PDF file only to discover the program mentioned once in a "we ran it" sort of off-handed way (that's the first English reference), or included in a long list at the very back of the conference proceedings (the second). The German reference is a single footnote which contains a bare URL, and the Chinese reference is an unpublished master's thesis. None of these constitute significant coverage. Suffice to say, this is abandonware from 5 years ago, which never even reached 1.0. Let's send this article to the Great Intertubes up in the Sky where it belongs. Ray^Talk 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to achieve in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources even after someone made a huge effort to find sources. I'm not going to listen to the audio. Drawn Some (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]