Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quod Libet

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Libet

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

This software does not claim to be notable. Existing references are blogs, documentation, and source code sites. Wikipedia is not a software catalog, source code navigator, or how-to site. Miami33139 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Libet is a commonly used media player with quite a lot of advanced features that other media players do not have. The software doesn't need to claim to be notable to be notable. Agreed the article needs work, and the article sources aren't necessarily authoritative. The older official site is no more and the main homepage is a Google Code page, but that is still not an open wiki page as such and is the best source of general information about it. I don't believe that there is cause for deletion just because not everyone thinks it is a really notable piece of software. By having the article it enables users who are e.g. looking for an alternative media player on the Linux platform to read an (albeit short) informative description of it from a well-known and used source. Arite (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for responding Arite. Unfortunately, these are not the reasons articles are kept around on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The sources that show notability need to be independent sites like academia, books on the subject, or large news items. You are welcome to read the Wikipedia:Notability policy to understand why mere existence is not a reason for Wikipedia to document it. Miami33139 (talk) 15:25, 23 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) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established within article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:28, 29 September 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.