Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple and Fast Multimedia Library (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simple_and_Fast_Multimedia_Library_(2nd_nomination)

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. Courcelles 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple and Fast Multimedia Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article was previously nominated for deletion on the basis that its subject was not notable and was closed as no consensus. Several self-published sources were presented, none of which met any WP:RS requirements. The situation remains the same today. The article is essentially unreferenced; the only citation it has is to the library's project site.

Using "Simple and Fast Multimedia Library" -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum, Google Web returns 151 results it deems unique. None of these results are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability. For example, the first ten results are a blog, four Debian project pages, three Facebook pages that mirror Wikipedia, and pages from a hobbyist game mod project. Google News returns no results; Google Books, one result, a book republishing Wikipedia content; Google Scholar, seven results. The Google Scholar results do not appear to be substantial coverage of the subject, nor do they appear to state that the subject is notable. Rilak (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Presumed independent coverage consists of a few blogs of unknown individuals. Less than 10 citations in GS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no independent, reliable sources cited in the article and Rilak's thorough search makes a good case that there simply aren't any. This is not a topic on which I would expect there to be good offline sources despite a lack of ones available via google. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (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.