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]

We are talking about notability, not about the reliability of the results, that should be determined one by one. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 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".

I consider [13] a reliable source since it is the official website, and of course [14] is also a sharing platform. The rest of the links may be militant? websites but also independent media covering this topic. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The URL was mistaken, it is [15]. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

If you don't want to spent your time in reading the sources I have provided you shoudn't be able to decide on maintain or delete this article. I don't know your notion of reliability and independence, but if you feel good by deleting a free software article, do it. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueinsect: The guidelines are not Tigraan's own. "Notability" is kind of a technical term and shouldn't be confused with "importance" or "significance". It's a quasi-objective measure of those sorts of things based on extensive consensus-building discussions over the last 14 years. An official site or a site written by the company or an involved person, is a reliable source for some basic information, but cannot be considered here because it's are not "independent of the subject". Anybody can write anything about themselves -- what Wikipedia wants to cover is what publications like newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and others that are "reliable" in the journalistic sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about Tigraan's own guidelines but about her/his notion of reliability and independence. I provided some sources that may be reliable and independent:

[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].

1. Do these sources involve a significant coverage?

"We need significant coverage. This helps show that a topic meets the notability guidelines. We need sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it."

The first quasi-objective question is: how much is significant? how many sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail should we consider?

2. Are these sources reliable?

"We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking. Choose: books, newspapers, or other periodicals. Not: discussion boards, fansites, Facebook, YouTube, or most blogs."

The second quasi-objective question is: which publishers have a reputation for fact checking? which books, newspapers, periodicals or minority of blogs should we choose?

3. Are these sources independent?

"We need sources that are independent. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. We want readers to be able to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. So, please add footnotes to your article."

And the third quasi-objective question is: how do you warrant that sources are independent or not?

I tell you the same thing, so if you feel good by deleting a free software article, do it.

Blueinsect (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]