Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Howell


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Emily Howell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article text is copied from http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/Emily-howell.htm Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've done some work to lose the copyvio and there are ample sources attesting to the notability of the program. I think someone with knowledge, which I don't have, could turn this into a good, strong article. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oh, come ON. I go to Wikipedia to learn about things I have no clue about otherwise. I heard a passing reference to "Emily Howell", that it was a bot that composed music, and the music I was listening to was indistinguishable (to me) from a human composer of background music. I vote it stays as is, until someone is willing to take the time to create better material. But don't delete at least a solid, basic reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.255.175 (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.
 * Keep - Article no longer directly copies the source referenced in the copy vio, and new version adds value. Emily Howell just get referenced in a viral youtube that has nearly 2 million hits [see youtube Humans Need Not Apply] which led me here. Notable and and in better shape. Keep. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The copyright issue has been dealt with and there seem to be no doubts about notability. --Deskford (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Really. There are no real copyright issues left here. It's an very interesting (but short) article --Slayer087 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2014 (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.