Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BespokeSynth


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  16:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

BespokeSynth

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. The only independent sources are this and this - from the Wikipedia article, but I don't think the latter should be considered reliable and the former just writes articles about all musical software, so I think BespokeSynth is there not because it stood out, but because website authors just needed content. I tried to find other independent reliable sources but couldn't. I believe it's not enough to merit a standalone article.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Both sources Deltaspace42 found are independent and provide significant coverage, so the question is whether they are reliable sources. As far as I know, the reason why a person writes a review/material is generally not relevant to establishing source reliability. If a source just writes articles about all musical software, that does not mean the source is unreliable; that's like suggesting a game review company is an unreliable source because they only write game reviews. website authors just needed content suggests that the source is not reliable due to WP:ROUTINE, but these reviews are clearly more detailed than routine coverage (for example, I consider this as routine coverage since it provides only a short description and quote). This source, while shorter, also helps to establish notability: . Darcyisvery cute (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Darcyisverycute, yeah, I consider "cdm" source (the first source I provided) both independent and reliable. This source, which you provided, I missed (probably because I forgot to check with a space between "Bespoke" and "Synth"). I'll wait for someone else to give their opinion whether or not it is enough for WP:NSOFT and I will withdraw this nomination if they think it's enough.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.