Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination)
yes there are sources, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. All the good sources cover the recent incident where the plugin was hacked, which means this article is essentially a  for an article about the hack. We can't have an article on the hack because of . Of the non-hack sources http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=13070&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 is a dead link, http://www.morpethherald.co.uk/news/Northumberland-health--now-you.5238884.jp is a local newspaper (in the UK these are generally not reliable), https://web.archive.org/web/20120204223553/http://www.newstatesman.com/nma/nma2004/nma2004winners.htm an insignificant award which doesn't count for much, http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/0931bf4408880d54 a newsgroup post (useless as a source), http://www.karlgroves.com/2012/04/19/can-assistive-technology-make-a-website-accessible/ some guy's blog. That just leaves https://avsm.org.uk/accessibility/, an explanation of what it does on the website of an organisation which uses it and http://www.digitalaccessibilitycentre.org/index.php/articles/61-text-to-speech which is the site of an company/organisation offering to make your website more accessible. I don't think those are collectively enough to establish notability
— User:Hut, 18:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia:Coatrack articles)