Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonneta

: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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

=[[Sonneta]]=

:{{la|Sonneta}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonneta Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sonneta}})

There are no reliable, independent sources for this product. All sources in the article, and all sources I could find online, are either (co-)written by the creators (mainly Fernandes), or from interested parties (the University that did the original research, and the company that commercializes the product). The Prod was removed because of the Bahn reference, but that reference is co-written by Fernandes and van Lieshout, so is not an independent source at all[http://profiles.wizfolio.com/PascalvanLieshout/publications/197/52889/]. This lack of independent sources means that so far, this product isn't notable. Fram (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The definition of reliable sources includes the following: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." The reason is because the publisher has an independent peer-review process for vetting articles. The publisher is the independent third party in this case, not the authors of the article. So the Banh reference is reliable and independent, since it has been vetted by the publisher's editors and peer-reviewers. A self-published source WP:SPS is something quite different (like a webpage), and does not apply to the Banh reference.

BNVOTFQW (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture, it is useful to compare the Sonneta article with articles describing similar systems. Computerized Speech Lab uses highly-biased language and reads like an advertisement; and Praat, while sticking to the facts, has no references. Perhaps it would make sense to merge all these articles into a single comparative one using the three (and more) products as examples. BNVOTFQW (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for a product. Morefoolhim 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

: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.