Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soundplant


 * 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 redirect to Software sampler. (non-admin closure) sst✈  09:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Soundplant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Several side-mentions in music mags and a compilation of every time a musician has mentioned the tool. The topic ultimately lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) and, at best, anything that needs to be said about the tool can be said in a one-sentence mention in Software_sampler. czar 11:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  czar  11:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Software sampler per with this edit and per nom. -&copy;2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 13:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Headline articles in CNET and MusicRadar hardly seem like mere "side mentions". Palefighter 06:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) — Palefighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * They're asides because they're barely more than a directory listing—we learn nothing about the product apart than that it exists. "Headlines" would imply more depth than exists in these articles: if there's no depth, we can't write an encyclopedia entry. czar  19:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reread the sources and your comments and I have trouble seeing any "lack of depth". Did you notice that the main content of the CNET source is not the text but rather a video on the subject illustrating the program's features and usage? And the Electronic Musician magazine article also details the program's features and offers a respected industry critic's opinion on its quality. These go significantly beyond a "directory listing". Combined with the multiple journal mentions, I'm not sure what further depth is warranted for a multiplatform app with a demonstrably significant user base. Palefighter 05:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The ad was almost longer than the video. All the CNET article says, as is accurately sourced in the article, is that this program lets users play sounds with their keyboards (with a few other basic options like volume, etc.) I think the sources show that Soundplant is interesting as a tool—it's listed in these articles among other tools not as an entity on its own, and we should cover accordingly. Everything that is reliably sourced about this tool is already said at Software_sampler.  czar  15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect as recommended by Compassionate727. The Electronic Musician article is a reasonable start, but the cited sources go sharply downhill from there in quality and depth, and searches found nothing better. As nom notes, anything worth saying on the subject can be said in a sentence or two. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect at best for now as there are no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  23:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete -referring to it as a "popular digital audio application" as the article currently does is a bit of a stretch. If that was the case, the Google search should be turning up more headlines from early 2000s to now, but its really only showing less than a handful of articles that don't give much info on its history or anything. Significance and notability seem to not be met Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2016 (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.