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 no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REPLAY (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No notability is established or implied. The article cites no reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Rather, most of the article's references are self-published. Has been speedied once in the past, and though this incarnation contains more substance, the software just hasn't had any traction to warrant inclusion. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added two (blog) articles on REPLAY from third-parties, that makes it three independent sources (English, Dutch, German); the article from the proceedings of the 36th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference was submitted and peer-reviewed, I don't know whether that makes it more of an independend source. Finally, the article has now been linke from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yovisto, making it less of an orphan. Not sure what you mean by "the software just hasn't had any traction" - how does this relate to notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oas777 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — Oas777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Peer-review of a paper by a creator of the subject software does not establish notability and is certainly not independent. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm a bit suspicious of self-promotion, but the article seems to have some decent sources - the language barrier makes this difficult, though. The article certainly needs rewriting, but I don't think it should be deleted. Nanowolf (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is bombarded with specious claims notability using papers and PPT presentations published by the subject software's creators, along with conference proceedings to which those individuals have contributed. When you discard sources that don't satisfy WP:RS and those in which the subject's creators had a hand in producing, what's left is insufficient to claim notability. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why you ask me to provide sources in the first place and then accuse me of "bombarding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oas777 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — Oas777 (talk •[reply]

• Keep. I don't think the article should be deleted, since it describes a software solution that is referred to throughout the user domain, e. g. the opencast community, dealing with a/v software products: opencast listserv. Additionaly, I attended numerous well-known conferences in Europe and the U.S. (e.g. EDUCAUSE) where this product was either presented or referred to, and last but not least the steeple project in the U.K. conducted a workshop on replay. Yakarij (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)— Yakarij (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This "keep" recommendation is the first and only edit of User:Yakarij (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whom I suspect to be a WP:SOCK. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:36, 22 May 2009 (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.