Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorico


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Dorico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is only coverage before the scorewriter was released, and it seems routine to me. The coverage is not really third-party reviews, but unrelated content and the rest essentially press releases. w umbolo  ^^^  13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – Music engraving programs don't get much coverage outside trade publications and users' forums. But Dorico, as a descendent of Sibelius, is noteworthy and has received coverage in more mainstream media, like Rheingold Publishing. I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod (Forte (notation program), Guitar Pro, Igor Engraver, Capella (notation program), Steinberg). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michael Bednarek. Brad  v  23:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep weak sourcing but passes per Michael Bednarek. Attempted mass deletion disruption. Widefox ; talk 22:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true. Attempted mass keep disruption, since you persistently vote keep based on only one source. w umbolo   ^^^  08:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wumbolo strike that bad faith assumption. User:Michael Bednarek there's discussion at WP:ANI about the disruption. Widefox ; talk 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? It's a perfectly logical assumption, since you haven't bothered to change your keep votes after I pointed out problems with them, and accused me of disrupting something. If you strike your bad faith assumptions, I will think about striking my evidence-based assumptions. w umbolo   ^^^  14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's WP:BATTLEGROUND. No need to strike, everyone else can see there's more than two RS meeting GNG, and it clearly isn't sincere. See WP:PRODUCT where even if this wasn't notable, it should be merged into the notable company (despite you attempting to delete that and ~40 other notable articles). Widefox ; talk 11:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment nom uses WP:ROUTINE which is Notability (events) for events / WP:NOTNEWS for persons and events only so does not apply here. Widefox ; talk 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michael Bednarek. James500 (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Kirn and Vanacoro and even Wherry do it for me, and there'll likely be even better if offline magazines.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:21, 18 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.