Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Sound Player (SSP) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Source_Sound_Player_(SSP)

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 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source Sound Player (SSP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I've just declined this as speedyspam. However, it doesn't appear to be notable. As A7 doesn't apply to software, I'm bringing it to AfD GedUK  19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why this is being considered for deletion. As I explained on the articles discussion page (to protest the speedy deletion), the article is up to standards. It provides a clear concise history of the program, compares the program to similar programs in a neutral manner, etcetera. In no way does the article advertise or compare itself in such a way that would indicate superiority. If you could point out specific sections that are troubling I will be happy to rewrite them. SZoo (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reading Wikipedia:Notability (software) may be helpful. At the moment, the article doesn't have any secondary sources. --Pnm (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content from and reformatted the Features and flaws section to remove content that could be taken as an ad-like comparison. SZoo (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No 3rd party sources/references; no indication of notability. To establish notability, this article would need non-incidental coverage in one or more reliable publications. Also, article was created by single purpose account owned by programmer of the software. Dialectric (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and unclear. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-evidently non-notable. No reliable coverage besides primary sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:45, 30 December 2010 (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.