Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATunes (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATunes

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP: N. The Quigley source in the existing article isn't reliable, nor are any other sources I could find online. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first AfD contains some sources that could establish notability. Two of the links are rotted and I couldn't find any archive of them. The other two are fairly short reviews, no more than a couple of paragraphs. I'm leaning slightly in favor of delete because I don't think this coverage is clearly extensive, but if there is consensus otherwise, I can understand that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A download page with a description is probably not significant coverage. The article is mostly a list of features, I would keep as an entry on Comparison of free software for audio. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per IgelRM. popodameron ⁠talk 00:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The scope of the Comparison of free software for audio list is "notable free and open source software". Since this software is not notable, the article should be deleted and the entry removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (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.