Deletion of Foobar2000

Comment: Internet fame means nothing unless mentioned in stuff that passed 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Other than what I've mentioned in my above two comments, I just wanted to mention that, in the case of the article's subject-matter not being verfiable, it seems that only the claim of supporting a "theoretical maximum sampling rate can be as high as 192 kHz" can't be verified, as far as I can tell. Everything else does seem to be mentioned on the software's website (which seems to fall under the category of a secondary source of information - see ), and could, possibly, be considered to be a form of general knowledge as the features mentioned can certainly be verified by anyone who happens to use the program (akin to having to verify that the sky is blue, and so forth) so it may not be entirely necessary to have other sources for such information. On the subject of notability, the lack of any current guidelines regarding software notability does make things tricky. However, as mentioned before, foobar2000 has been the subject of a few articles (http://lifehacker.com/search/foobar2000/) on the Lifehacker blog (note that this is ''not'' a personal blog; rather, it is operated by a few editors, and is owned by a parent company, Gawker Media. Thus, I believe, that it falls under the category of reliable), as well as having an article about it (http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/foobar/) on Techspot - another reliable source, I believe. This is ''in addition'' to the numerous personal web sites, personal blogs, download sites, and community forums that make reference to foobar2000 (and can be found via a search engine). Hence, I believe, the article ''does'' meet the requirements set in  for notability. Also, note that I am following these guidelines, rather than the more general notablity guidelines, as they do take into account the nature of web-based content, such as programs. --  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/124.169.5.240|124.169.5.240
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:WEB)

Comment: While I am seeing a large number of '''''' type comments, none of them are hashing out the problem outlined in this nomination.  There are no reliable non-trivial sources about this subject.  It continues to fail  and .  The book cited by Dhartung on Google Books which mentions Foobar2000 lifted their text from this very Wikipedia article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PERABOVE||WP:N||WP:SOFTWARE)

Comment: Blogs do not meet ; if it really is notable, we will not need to rely entirely on them to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)