Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capella (notation 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 keep. Tone 09:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Capella (notation program)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The article's references aren't reliable sources, and I haven't found any reliable sources. Declined PROD. w umbolo  ^^^  11:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:  . This passes WP:GNG.  Brad  v  15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The second source is not a review. w umbolo   ^^^  15:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That seems like very routine coverage. w umbolo   ^^^  21:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I am aware of bludgeoning, and that's why I never reply the same thing. However, maybe you should be also aware of it. w umbolo   ^^^  08:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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) Widefox ; talk 12:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. w umbolo   ^^^  14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 for a software/product article when it doesn't apply in your own words?  Widefox ; talk 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. w umbolo   ^^^  15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (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 Notability (organizations and companies) where reviews like are not routine, no.  Widefox ; talk 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't call that review you linked routine. w umbolo   ^^^  15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While picking minor faults in sourcing in these AfDs, you've lost the overview, which is you're way off, against consensus. Do you not see that? What's the sucssess rate and the approval from other editors? We don't agree. I think my !voting is 100% with consensus on these AfDs. That's that. Until the disruption is addressed by ANI, stop BLUDGEONING the process. Widefox ; talk 16:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're worried about voting with consensus, not with making good arguments? And my intention has never been to bludgeon, no need to ask me not to. w umbolo   ^^^  16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said that, complete straw man. My point being consensus is clear at these AfDs, and you're going against it. You seem to be plowing on with more AfDs, despite an active ANI with no sign of an end to this disruption. Widefox ; talk 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Congrats. Widefox ; talk 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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: [//www.google.com/search?q= capella Notensatzprogramm]. I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod (Forte (notation program), Guitar Pro,, Dorico, Steinberg). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the search term, but I still haven't found anything. Which sources are you specifically looking at? w umbolo   ^^^  08:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like Wumbulo is spreading AfD over the Wikipedi. Yes, it may be easier than improving the articles, but this should not be the Wikipedia way ... See also the list of AfD's, Michael Bednarek has collected. All of this software is relevant to music notation history and/or current use. Bassklampfe (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that the article should be kept? I'm wondering since you didn't provide an argument (WP:JUSTAVOTE). w umbolo   ^^^  20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument was All of this software is relevant to music notation history and/or current use Because of this I'd prefer a improvement of these articles instead of a removement. Bassklampfe (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request an admin closure please. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.