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.
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!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, LizRead!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
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.