Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MusicBrainz Picard

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 merge‎ to MusicBrainz. ✗plicit 06:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBrainz Picard

[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)

Nominated as this had been deprodded, which got reverted who claimed there are a number of sources available; take this to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I then redirected this to Musicbrainz as its notability is rather thin, again reverted because it seems notable.

This is my rationale to nominate but reluctantly: apps and softwares of database websites are not notable on their own. It may seem "notable" to that editor but half of the 7 sources are hardly reliable sources. Of the sources, one is a talk by the creator of the website, so this is of a promotional nature. The one by PCWorld is a review and the one by CNET is a guide on using the app. Also, as with further reading, they are all guides on how to use the app. Thus this makes WP:RS rather questionable. Nothing in that article asserts why should it be notable here.

Alternatively, I suggest redirect this to MusicBrainz as a WP:ATD but I feel its notability is also pretty questionable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and Software. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PC World is fine, kind of slim. Popular Science is also a slim article. I'd consider those 1.5 sources together, not really meeting notability. The rest is primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for coverage, Gsearch is all primary sourcing to their own website. Gnews is various repositories or blog type sites that feature software. I don't see enough for notability. I'd also have PROD this when reviewing it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think the MusicBrainz Picard article should be merged with the MusicBrainz article. Maybe create a separate MusicBrainz Picard subheading in the Client Software heading. Between the two articles, there should be enough reliable sources to establish notability.

GranCavallo (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as an ATD per GranCavallo; I also concur with Oaktree's analysis of the search results. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 12 February 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.