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 keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BrowseAloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely sure if this program is notable in and of itself, or whether the article is just a puff piece for a non-notable program. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been a critic of this program for years (the day job): screen readers are good, but this is a bad screen reader. If it has any claim to notability, that would be based on their evident ability to convince clueless large organisations (many local councils, large utilities) that they ought to buy it. I would certainly never recommend it to either users with accessibility issues, or to site operators looking to achieve real accessibility.

So should wiki cover it? We do regard debunking snake oil as within our encyclopedic remit. I would support coverage of it on that basis, as the world at large ought to be warned off using it. Puffery is never a reason to delete an article though, as it's easily fixed by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, good or bad, there are sources covering it]. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sourced. The Eskimo (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2010 (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.