Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hauptwerk Virtual Organ


 * 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   delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hauptwerk Virtual Organ

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Several reasons:
 * 1) It lacks information on the notability of the subject matter. WP:GNG
 * 2) It does not cite any references or sources. I'm not counting the "Crumhorn Labs About Us" ref because the specific page doesn't exist any more.
 * 3) It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Nameley, the company website. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
 * 4) It reads like a review, advertisement, fan site, news release, and is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone, compromised by peacock terms. Its tone and style are not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:SOAP
 * 5) It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and it may contain original research or unverifiable claims. WP:OR
 * 6) It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content (how to create a virtual pipe organ). WP:NOTHOW
 * 7) All of the encyclopedic content duplicates what is already covered in Organ and Pipe Organ.  –   j ak s mata  21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — –   j ak s mata  21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although it sounds like a pretty darned cool piece of software, if your system is configured properly and all the promo fluff is accurate. No info on notability, too much info about related material -- if this were properly cleaned up (without looking for sourcing), it would be about two paragraphs long.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing the notability or sources, reads like an marketing brochure and I wouldn't be surprised if its a copyright violation of something. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if sourcing can be improved Googling shows this to be a reasonably well-known free product. The main issue appears to be finding acceptable third-party sources. Oh, and the article is terrible. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's free... According to the company website, it costs either $224 or $539 depending on the version. –  j ak s mata  21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete. You people are out of your minds. There are so many mediocre articles in Wikipedia, and this one actually provides information on an excellent product which is (in my opinion) too good for the average idiot reading Wikipedia to even appreciate. It needs more rigorous referencing, but should NOT be deleted. It is perhaps one of the most revolutionary products to come out in organ and harpsichord practice in the history of synthesized music. I own the product, paid for it, and think that it deserves a reference in Wikipedia. I am too busy to improve the article, but if you have enough time to complain about it, then why don't you try to improve it? Perhaps because you don't understand it and never used it, and therefore have nothing useful or intelligent to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.173.172 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2009 (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.

I, Kenneth Spencer, was the original author of the page. I have deleted the discussion as I am very annoyed that my work has been deleted from Wikipaedia. Who is Jaksama anyway and why didn't he or she contact me before deleting the article? The contribution was made in good faith following many requests for assistance in the understanding of Virtual Pipe Organs. Other than the fact that I own a copy of the software and have built a virtual pipe organ myself I have no connection with Hauptwerk. Furthermore, I have been accused of stealing the content of my schematic of the virtual pipe organ. This schematic was in fact my own work and nearly all the photographs and diagrmas in the schamatic are of my own hardware or were drawn myself. The rest of them, and very few at that, were all reproduced with permission, as was declared.

I shall now proceed to delete the rest of my contributions to Wikipaedia, including those on two English Villages, and on the nature of Compton Scattering in radiation physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaspencer (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)