Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strawberry (software)

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 Clementine (software). asilvering (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry (software)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG The only references are to Github and other hosting sites. It does not demonstrate any sort of notability. My searches have come up empty on anything more substantial. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused about "The only references are in Github and other hosting sites."

The software has a website, with an active forum:

https://www.strawberrymusicplayer.org/

Some reviews:

https://itsfoss.com/strawberry-music-player/

https://linuxmasterclub.com/strawberry/

https://absolutelybaching.com/technical-articles/music-players-for-windows-a-comparative-review/strawberry-music-player/

https://umatechnology.org/strawberry-a-fork-of-clementine-music-player/

https://www.addictivetips.com/ubuntu-linux-tips/organize-your-music-on-linux-with-strawberry/ Samuraibrian (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it has a website and forum is no indication that it meets the criteria of being notable. All but one of these sources are not suitable as they are missing key criteria such as significant, reliable or independent. The first one is the only one which may meet the criteria. The second is just a listing of its features not a review. The third is a personal blog, not reliable. The last 2 are not independent, no byline to say an independent person actually wrote these. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The software has a homepage, and a latest release this year (2025) for several mainstream OS's. How's that not enough? 130.238.197.107 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons stated above. I see that improvement can be made in the references, and as the main contributor to this article, I will try, in the next few days, to reference some of the technical web sites that reviewed this software. The problem with WP:GNG is that it is heavily one-sided towards large news sources and academic work. This is not relevant to most, if not all, the Open Source software where development is done by a small group of even a single developer. Such pieces of work have significant numbers of followers and users satisfying specific niches. In the case of Strawberry, it started from a general audio reproduction application and added significant options catering towards audiophile audiences.

Usually large news/media sources tend to review OSS where there is some financial reward even if that is only due to advertisement. I wish that WP editors consider these facts and apply notability requirements appropriately instead with utmost strictness without any consideration to the subject matter. --Ank (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the issue here, the issue here is the article didn't have any suitable references. Everyone one was connected to the software/developer or did not provide any actual independent insight to the software or why it is any more notable then any other software on github. I couldn't find any source not connected to the developer when I did my before search. So this wasn't a strict application of the guidelines it was a poor choice to move into the main space without even one decent source. I am not opposed to this going back to draft space to incubate longer as an alternate to deletion and to give more time for proper sourcing to be found. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What I was trying to say above is that as an editor you should be more relaxed and try to see the larger WP picture rather than going after every detail on each article. Specifically you are (trying) enforcing WP:GNG on articles that have little relevance to it. WP:SNG might be a better guide but unfortunately it does not have a section for open source software. Additionally, all WP rules state very clearly that WP does not have strict rules just guides and each guide is enforced having in mind the subject matter at hand. In other words an editor cannot be trigger happy and be a good editor.

2. There are numerous articles in WP that, in some form or other, fail WP:GNG. May be they should all be deleted.

3. An editor listens to the community. Above, there are three individuals that believe this article presents a sufficiently notable software application. We disagree with you that GitHub and hosting sites cannot be referenced, especially when the application has survived the test of time. In WP there are numerous articles where this is done.In addition some references supplied above are not in any way related to the developers or contributors and are therefore independent. One web sire referenced is sponsored by a huge open source provider therefore as reliable as it gets. Based on these arguments the article should remain in the main namespace.

4. An editor that has classified an article as a candidate for deletion should NOT engage in editing/contributing in any way to the article. This is just common sense if you want to be an impartial editor. By severely editing the article including removing whole sections (features) and almost all its references, including those that are independent/reliable you have nullified your impartiality and invalidated your guardianship of the rules therefore you cannot function as an editor.

5. MY SUGGESTION: You should immediately remove yourself from further action on this article and possibly refer the whole matter to another editor/administrator. It is obvious that you are not impartial.

Personally I do not wish to engage in a discussion war. In my >20 years of contribution to WP I have had enough of such petty disputes. I prefer to spend my time more constructively possibly contributing to Strawberry, if I can. Ank (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Clementine (software): As an unofficial successor of Clementine, it's probably worth discussing, but I'm not seeing good enough sources for a standalone article. I note that the other editors were almost certainly brought here by an off-wiki discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Helpful Raccoon. It doesn't help that there was a Strawberry Software Inc from way back in the day to throw my reference search off. Conyo14 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2025 (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.