Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARAS (software)

ARAS (software)

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

I looked for sources and did not find enough sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Possible it could've been CSDed as promotional given it's currently only a list of features and basic description with no secondary sources... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, some sources in the direction of "if you have JACK you might also like ARAS" exist, but as I don't know the topic I didn't bother to add it, because I couldn't explain why a Softpedia review about JACK helps with the notabilty for ARAS. Hopefully some Linux folks with a clue can help out here with reasons to delete or keep this article. It's not spammy, free software, no speedy required. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RS turned up at search. Does not fit CSD because it certainly is not unambiguously promotional. Being free software is irrelevant: a political tract or an NGO's press release would be promotional even if it did not ask for money. Tigraan (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, why Airtime, Campcaster and OpenBroadcaster meet the requirements and why ARAS does not?

Blueinsect (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueinsect: WP:OTHER is not a reason to prevent deletion, but specifically, Airtime won an award, Campcaster was featured in BBC reporting and OpenBroadcaster seems to have some sources to indicate notability too. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google search, "openbroadcaster" "radio automation": 636 results, "aras" "radio automation":868 results, between them: [1], [2] or [3] Blueinsect (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an invalid WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. Tigraan (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An invalid WP:GOOGLEHITS argument but a valid argument 'OpenBroadcaster seems to have some sources to indicate notability too'. Good. Blueinsect (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provide them, if you are so sure of that. I am confident I would dig up many hits with "<X> is a moron" replacing X with a famous politician of your choosing, but I doubt any of them is to a reliable source. Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also [4] Blueinsect (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, updated, single purpose account. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my first article, not a single purpose account, bad argument. Blueinsect (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RS. Two absolutely reliable sources: [5] and [6].
Comment WP:GNG. Some significant coverage from independent sources: [7], [8], [9] [10], [11], [12].

sourceforge.net is certainly not a "reliable source" since it is a mere sharing platform, similar to (say) tumblr: anyone can publish there. The jackd.org source redirects to about.me (same thing). Same thing for wordpress; CTP Cordoba, Radialistas and Analfatecnicos look like militant websites (I cannot read Spanish); the page on Medioscomunitarios is a list of every software, hence a "passing mention".

The URL was mistaken, it is [13].

I do not want to bite a newcomer and I understand you might have trouble with English as a second language, but did you even read the guidelines you quoted? Just to clarify, the sources need to be at the same time reliable, independant, and deep-coverage. Please at least read WP:42, it is a short summary; I am not spending anymore time reading your sources if you do not even check them before. Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]