Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capella (notation program)

Capella (notation program)

[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)

Not notable. The article's references aren't reliable sources, and I haven't found any reliable sources. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 11:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private and completely wrong opinion by user "wumbolo". Why didn't he improve the article instead of pushing for the destruction of knowledge? --L.Willms (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is one of the top music notation software programs. Sources can be difficult to find because of the ambiguous name, but there are at least three additional reviews that can be used to improve the article: [1] [2] [3]. This passes WP:GNG. Brad v 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is not a review. wumbolo ^^^ 15:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was WP:BEFORE even done? On top of the two above, a quick books search finds The Instrumentalist (magazine) Volume 62 - Page 114, that passes WP:GNG but I agree sources are scarce. Widefox; talk 16:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like very routine coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 21:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this one appears borderline notability, enough sources have been identified and it's improved. WP:BLUDGEON is to be aware of on all these AfDs. Widefox; talk 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of bludgeoning, and that's why I never reply the same thing. However, maybe you should be also aware of it. wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "routine" isn't what you think it is. WP:ROUTINE is only for people and events. You've linked it in another software AfD, so it's clear you incorrectly mean that there and here, which does not apply to any of these software AfDs. See WP:BLUDGEON ..sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. .. . (See also WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo) Widefox; talk 12:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you reply again. How is that not bludgeoning? WP:ROUTINE is specifically for events (not even people), but it can be applied when the word routine appears in other policies and guidelines (which is at WP:NCORP among others). And I'm aware of the ANI thread, and can refute each one of your aspersions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't understand bludgeoning? I'm bludgeoning on my own !vote now? Do you desire to restrict me commenting on my own !vote?! If by your own words it's "specifically for events", why did you link it [4] for a software/product article when it doesn't apply in your own words? Widefox; talk 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What?! I said that it can be applied. What can be routine except events? People aren't "routine". And WP:ROUTINE nicely explains what "routine" means. I can cite whatever policy or guideline I can if I can prove that it applies to the subject in question. wumbolo ^^^ 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) and yes, the issue is linking to the wrong guideline for the AfD. (It links there to the policy WP:NOTNEWS which broadens it). The correct guideline being Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) where reviews like [5] are not routine, no. Widefox; talk 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Bradv/Widefox - I've added a cite for Bradv's first and confirmed all three on Wayback. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Widefox; talk 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's one of the leading and most established music notation programs, dominant in Germany, where it's widely used for liturgical music, among other areas. In addition to the search term above (Finding sources), "Capella (notation program)", the term "capella Notensatzprogramm" would have been helpful: capella Notensatzprogramm. I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod (Forte (notation program), Guitar Pro, Igor Engraver, Dorico, Steinberg). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Thanks for the search term, but I still haven't found anything. Which sources are you specifically looking at? wumbolo ^^^ 08:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]