Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoxyTunes

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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyTunes

[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)

Receives only passing mentions in reliable sources. Previously declined PROD for the reason that it does contain mentions in sources, but those are insignificant/unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the little controversy at ANI I'm not gonna !vote here, but I did find a great source about Foxytunes: [1]. There's also [2] but the Haaretz article actually goes into significant detail. However, these are both about Yahoo acquiring Foxytunes so there needs to be coverage of other events to fulfill WP:SUSTAINED. The other sources I could dig up on Foxytunes were a few short Lifehacker articles and short reviews. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was ~~Comment~~(~~leaning towards maybe delete~~, consider this a keep if stronger sources are found) Initial looking found a few passing mentions in books ( mostly among list of suggested extensions to install to firefox ). As noted by FenixFeather, there are a few articles on the Yahoo Acquisition and termination of FoxyTunes: TechCrunch on rumors purchase by Yahoo [3], Softpedia on Yahoo dropping FoxyTunes[4], Gizmodo related acquisition to Yahoo's music service termination[5], and some such as this AP article (link is version syndicated into Business Insider) talking about a wave Israeli startups being acquired along with Waze by Google[6]. I've also seen the lifehacker articles as also mentioned above only other thing I saw in my search of news archives was a blog but on owned by ZDNet, Mashable talking about launching of a feature[7]. Ars Technica had a brief mention of it in relation to Yahoo and Rhapsody working together.[8]. Haven't seen anything really that talked about FoxyTunes as FoxyTunes. PaleAqua (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support redirecting (maybe merging) to Yahoo!, ideally to a section that talks about acquisitions. PaleAqua (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep as per additional sources and improvements to the article. PaleAqua (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Comment~~ My understanding is FoxyTunes had a contested PROD on 2 January 2018 for reasons given by nom, it was declined PROD on 19 September 2018 as it had already had a contested PROD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my book I thought FoxyTunes was heading for an expired PROD on 19 September and I was actually not really bothered but the cunning article escaped. I have found a PCW Review from May 2007.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to wonder if this should be a keep? Significant enough to be acquired by Yahoo then run as a brand for 4 or 5 years ... Has international versions. On the opposing side I personally cannot remember nothing about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now moving to keep. I have improved the article to give the body a little more content and substance. A little more could yet be added from the existing references. On balance I am also minded this had some form of impact over a wide geographical area over a few years. I believe there are sufficent references for the notability requirement. There are some useful wikilinks to other parts of the encylopedia including web browser, toolbox and media player (software). As far as I am aware value would be lost in any plausible merge that I am aware of so I would now be reluctant to compromise to that option. So I am moved to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request non-admins closure. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources have been found so now two or three RS so exceeds WP:GNG ~~Merge and redirect~~ to Yahoo or a sub article of. It may be notable/borderline N in itself and the source [9] claims it was one of Firefox's most popular add-ons. ... 8 million users... , but latterly the notability came from Yahoo. Certainly notability does not stop even when discontinued per WP:NTEMP. Widefox; talk 00:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: which "sources" are you referring to? The MacWorld review is literally a capsule review, which we can't use to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved there's two assertions of notability - 1. software that's been used worldwide by over 8 million people (on all platforms) 2. Yahoo! topic (the fact that it's now dead software is irrelevant for notability per WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Even if WP:N wasn't satisfied, considering it brutally as a product of Yahoo! it would be merge/redirected into Yahoo! not deleted. Doing that would lose the whole backstory, more so that merging the internal only Google Toolbar into Google. For readers it may be best to consider as WP:SPINOUT to keep Yahoo! from having WP:UNDUE while keeping the usefulness of the info in the article. 2. may not need to meet separate N per SPINOUT/that essay I quoted in one of your other AfDs. So 1. - does it meet WP:GNG anyway? yes, it's had significant, worldwide, sustained coverage, including sole articles on it in Haaretz, Ynet, Ghacks, Softonic, Softpedia, combined with significant superlatives or listings in general reading top tier sources like The Daily Telegraph through Wired to lots of computer industry ones etc etc - per the article today. There's enough sources for BLP aspects, and it can make Class C easily so it's not a WP:PERMASTUB. I wouldn't classify being mentioned in an article called "The Best Free Software (2007)", "Review: Top 10 Mozilla Firefox Extensions", "Firefox 3: Top ten extensions" as a passing mention either, no, it counts for notability due to many of them. I was wrong - there is abundant coverage and yet more exist WP:NEXIST. Per 2., as Yahoo! topic, products which aren't notable themselves they would get merged anyhow, not deleted. We have more OK sources to build an article here than there are in the magazine sources etc we use. Seems solid to me on all fronts for a proper topic with history, good work User:Djm-leighpark and User:PaleAqua may want to check the found sources. Widefox; talk 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  "significant superlatives or listings in general reading top tier sources" has nothing to do with GNG, and plenty of sources you were referring to are routine press release announcements. "may not need to meet separate N" is not true at all, see WP:NOTINHERITED. wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered which 3 full articles in RS are enough by themselves, passes GNG. Some of the other 17 currently in the article add to more than those 3. I'm sorry we don't agree but I'm sure other's would like to evaluate them, and any others they may find, so we'll have to agree to differ. (see WP:NOTINHERITED - it not as black and white as asserted, some articles are allowed, not that my view is based on that, it passes GNG) Widefox; talk 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded I would also add Rankin. In my opinion WP:NOTINHERITED's a mess ... surely designed to obfusticate my head within the totality of its situation in its article and diversions to elsewhere: but I seemed to have come away with some sort of takeaway that parent to child ... not always and child to parent ... rarely ... and life is better spent simply doing content and citing. From my viewpoint which its not always universal FoxyTunes operated as an independent brand entity and any merge to parent can end in torment in those circumstances. We are also talking about the software not the organisation. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my main point is there's enough sources for GNG. There also seems to be an over strict and incorrect interpretation of GNG/RS at these AfDs that sources must be large and exclusively about the topic. I quote GNG but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It may be a quick rule-of-thumb for editors to consider the threshold for GNG is about finding 2 (or more) main topic articles. Here 2.5 sources are evaluated by an editor "There is no such thing as 0.5 sources. It's either 0 or 1 (and every publication is limited to 1)." In terms of number of sources yes, in terms of amount of coverage absolutely not per policy, it's perfectly fine to consider smaller sources as being fractional coverage as that fits with policy. Sources can't just be dismissed as 0 as they're half as useful in coverage per policy. It's not binary. That's wrong, period. We have an overwhelming abundance of reliable sources by any normal standard here which per GNG do count. That means that we have unambiguously significant coverage in this AfD (Minor point is things aren't as black and white and there's alternatives WP:ATD, SPINOUT for the benefit of readers. WP:DOM essay seems appropriate considering this/these AfDs.) I think it would help if Wumbolo spelled out which sources they are excluding, and why, and how that compares to other AfDs/articles.Widefox; talk 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vastly improved since article was nominated for AfD with 25 sources added, I am more than happy to say this now passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (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.