Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Django (program)
- 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 delete. While this is a real program, this requires that articles and information be verifiable, and that verifiability cannot be overridden by consensus. I cannot see sources which demonstrate notability, and therefore, deletion is the only option. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Django (program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability in this search and this search. Schuym1 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FIRM KEEP. This is a very important program in its (verry narrow) field.Galassi (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that it's an important program. Schuym1 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand. No deletion.Lute88 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you vote keep? Schuym1 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I know a few things about the application, and its field.Lute88 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the article meet WP:NOTABILITY? Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I know a few things about the application, and its field.Lute88 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you vote keep? Schuym1 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. This really needs proper assertion of notability, but given that one wikipedian who is a composer seems to be vouching for the software's significance, I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt. Just. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD should be based on notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD tag is based on ignorance.Lute88 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD is based on WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, the issue of whether the software can be presumed notable. There more people are using the same piece of software (other than sockpuppets or meatpuppets), the more likely it is that they would have heard of the software through reliable third-party sources. I agree that citing the sources would be the best solution, but neither do I think it's helpful to delete articles that may well pass notability just because no-one has dug up a suitable source yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An AFD should not be closed per it being presumed notable. The users that vote keep have plenty of time to find sources in the remainder of this AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly everything that goes to AFD can be presumed notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule I am observing, however, is WP:COMMON, or use common sense. Specialist pieces of software don't often get much coverage in third-party sources (at least not those that can be easily accessed through online sources). Sibelius (computer program), for example, is generally regarded as the leading score-writing music program, and no-one who knows anything about music would suggest deleting that article, but the coverage in third-party sources is at best obscure. Now, in the case of Django, writing notation for guitar and lute tablature is a significant niche in the writing of sheet music, and should Django be the leading provider, that would make it important. That is why I think we should listen to the opinions of music-writing specialists before dismissing notability out of hand. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to take someone's word for it. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know, you've made the same point at least six times now. Repeating the same thing a seventh time running won't reinforce it any further. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to take someone's word for it. Schuym1 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule I am observing, however, is WP:COMMON, or use common sense. Specialist pieces of software don't often get much coverage in third-party sources (at least not those that can be easily accessed through online sources). Sibelius (computer program), for example, is generally regarded as the leading score-writing music program, and no-one who knows anything about music would suggest deleting that article, but the coverage in third-party sources is at best obscure. Now, in the case of Django, writing notation for guitar and lute tablature is a significant niche in the writing of sheet music, and should Django be the leading provider, that would make it important. That is why I think we should listen to the opinions of music-writing specialists before dismissing notability out of hand. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly everything that goes to AFD can be presumed notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An AFD should not be closed per it being presumed notable. The users that vote keep have plenty of time to find sources in the remainder of this AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, the issue of whether the software can be presumed notable. There more people are using the same piece of software (other than sockpuppets or meatpuppets), the more likely it is that they would have heard of the software through reliable third-party sources. I agree that citing the sources would be the best solution, but neither do I think it's helpful to delete articles that may well pass notability just because no-one has dug up a suitable source yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD is based on WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD tag is based on ignorance.Lute88 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AFD should be based on notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So far it only has the official site, a discussion group, and an unsourced assertion of notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And a source that doesn't talk about the program. Schuym1 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds like a good program, and something I would use, but it doesn't seem to fit into WP:N. Anyone change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think this program is likely notable - perhaps the notable program of its kind - but agree some sourcing to demonstrate that from music industry sources would help. Have no clue which ones to look at or even if they are online but willing to extend good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 10 November 2008 (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.