Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beep Media Player
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 keep. Merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beep Media Player
- Beep Media Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable piece of software. Open source project that is dead and codebase migrated to different projects, last released in 2005, so no new references are going to appear to make this notable. Unreferenced for more than one year. In that year, only one non-bot edited the article indicating a lack of interest in editors to maintain this article to standards (90% of the article would be deleted as referenceless.) There is a weak claim to notability that it is the source project for Audacious. If so, then this deserves about two or three sentences in that article with a redirect. This article has no notability to stand as an indepedent subject. Miami33139 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, dead project, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Keep or merge per below, I'm trusting in Tothwolf. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the two notable forks. At the very least, this could be a useful disambiguation page to point people to the articles about those forks. The sources I found for BMP were fairly trivial, but it has been discussed in many Linux articles and books & directing people to these other pages is a good thing. --Karnesky (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a software genealogy tree. We do not make disambiguation pages where one old piece of software led to the creation of other software. If this piece of software is not notable, and it is not, then it does not need an independent article. If it is important to the history of other software, then it is worth mentioning in the article for the other software. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was one notable fork, then my suggestion would be to redirect this page to that fork (possibly with discussion of BMP in that other article). That outcome is not untypical for deletion discussions such as this. We can't do that here, because there are two notable forks. We do make disambiguation pages where different users who stumbled on one landing page may conceivably want to find different articles. That is the case here. DABs are typically different than articles & I agree that we can trim this article considerably to make it serve that purpose better. --Karnesky (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very easily taken care of with a dab header at the top of an article "Beep (Media Player) redirects here, for the other project..." Miami33139 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So where would you have it redirected to and why choose either Audacious or BMPx over the other? Neither seems to be to be a primary topic & this is exactly the situation that calls for using a dab page instead of a header. Either a DAB page or a redirect would require that this page not be deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very easily taken care of with a dab header at the top of an article "Beep (Media Player) redirects here, for the other project..." Miami33139 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was one notable fork, then my suggestion would be to redirect this page to that fork (possibly with discussion of BMP in that other article). That outcome is not untypical for deletion discussions such as this. We can't do that here, because there are two notable forks. We do make disambiguation pages where different users who stumbled on one landing page may conceivably want to find different articles. That is the case here. DABs are typically different than articles & I agree that we can trim this article considerably to make it serve that purpose better. --Karnesky (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a software genealogy tree. We do not make disambiguation pages where one old piece of software led to the creation of other software. If this piece of software is not notable, and it is not, then it does not need an independent article. If it is important to the history of other software, then it is worth mentioning in the article for the other software. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is not temporary, even if the project itself is dead riffic (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without citations to reliable sources, there is nothing notable about this project, now or in the past Please show this project was ever had notability with sources. Miami33139 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- okay but as a nom please be familiar with WP:BEFORE, I found this on google book search: [1], Principles of Multimedia By Ranjan Parekh, Ranjan Published by Tata McGraw-Hill, 2006 ISBN 0070588333, 9780070588332.
- One sentence in the appendix? Trivial mentions do not make notability. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason for hyperbole. One sentence in an appendix would truly be trivial. There is more than one sentence on the topic & it takes up a whole subsection of a chapter (NOT an appendix). The single paragraph is obviously not exclusive coverage. I'd imagine that many (not all) would be convinced that coverage in any individual source was trivial, so there's no reason to understate the actual quantity of content or to mis-state the location in the book to make your point. Note also that it receives a similar amount coverage in many other books. The guideline gives no exact test for significance of coverage. To Riffic, the coverage is significant enough & to you it is not. To me, it is somewhat borderline & I don't know why you are so passionate that this should be deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One sentence in the appendix? Trivial mentions do not make notability. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- okay but as a nom please be familiar with
- Without citations to reliable sources, there is nothing notable about this project, now or in the past Please show this project was ever had notability with sources. Miami33139 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chainsaw-Merge or Redirect to XMMS. XMMS itself is notable, and while there has been a lot of forks of XMMS, not every one of them is worth having an article of their own, especially when the changes are little more than "XMMS with a few modernisations". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:37, 6 June 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.