Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forte (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 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Forte (notation program)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Ref 1, toptenreviews.com, is unreliable and the rest of references in the article are affiliated with Forte. I found a little routine coverage in reliable sources, but nothing of significance. Also no mentions in literature. w umbolo  ^^^  08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Against deletion
 * I am strictly against deletion of this article. There are enough independent sources showing the notability of this product -- maybe not for the commercial companies which do produce competing products and want to suppress knowledge of the competition. Just google for "forte musical notation" and you find enough.
 * I myself do not use Forte, although I have a licence for the most basic version, but I am against the competion on the market for musical notation programs is fought out by deleting articles on the competion on Wikipedia.
 * So, I'll remove the "proposed deletion" macro.
 * --L.Willms (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * --L.Willms (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – easily passes WP:GNG with reviews such as these: .  Brad  v  17:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bradv. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 01:36, 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 at AfD:Capella notation program. All of this software is relevant to music notation history and/or current use. Bassklampfe (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources here passing GNG. Mass nom disruption without BEFORE. Widefox ; talk 11:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just restored article content removed by an editor who had been having heated debates at ANI. While some of reasons are valid the removal of article references while at AfD and a blanking of a proportion of the article does not seem appropriate.  I have suggested content details are discussed on the article talk page however AfD related matters are obviously discussed here.  Disclosure: On gut feel article is a keep and is likely heading for some form of SNOWy keep anyway so do not want to spend effort trawling for references.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At least most of the concerns raised in that content removal were valid and I have tagged affected sections for cleanup and hope this is acceptable as an interim measure. Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:22, 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 non-admins do not close closure . Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 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.