Wikipedia:Deletion review/MusE


 * The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

There was strictly speaking no reason for this matter to be considered at Deletion review. The page MusE was the subject of a single AfD, which was reasonably closed with a consensus to redirect to the similarly spelled MuSE; as MusE at the time of the AfD had never been adequately referenced, and as the AfD participants had been unable to find any reputable sources to support the contention that MusE might be treated encyclopedically, it was not unreasonable to use the page as a redirect to another page with a similarly spelled title (although looking at MuSE I find it suffers from the same problems that MusE once did).

Once Omegatron located ostensibly acceptable sources for MusE, however, he was perfectly entitled to simply remove the redirect and write on the subject at that page; there was no need to bring the matter to DRV. Should others have found that the new article was still, in their view, inadequately sourced, the usual avenues remain open—the talk page, or perhaps a second AfD, depending on the strength and nature of their concerns. I am somewhat puzzled by the comments below asking for 'undeletion' or endorsing a deletion—the page has never been deleted. As there is nothing here for DRV to do, I am closing this discussion. — Encephalon 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

MusE
Latest version of this software article was deleted after four people voted it non-notable. No one else commented. Reasons it is notable:

Other notability criteria:
 * Simply because it has an annoyingly similar name to MuSE, but is not the same program. Redirecting to MuSE from MusE is totally wrong and misleading.
 * Featured as a cover story in Linux Magazine. Other articles by third parties:
 * One of the major components of PlanetCCRMA, a major distribution for musicians. — Omegatron 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Recreate. If those references weren't in the original article, that might explain the deletion. I'd have to see the original article. This is one of the reasons why I like applying WP:CITE and WP:NOR templates first, instead of just going out and deleting them. Anyway, by WP:SOFTWARE this system definitely meets notability criteria. Captainktainer * Talk 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a link to the deleted revision. — Omegatron 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion, but recreate with sources Afd closure was correct, but with new sources seems worth recreating. I can see from the afd that MusE and MuSE were regarded as the same thing, so don't forget the otheruses at the top :). (A reference describing the confusion between the two similar names might be good to show they they are distinct, to stop this confusion happening again. Regards, MartinRe 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a disambig at the top of both articles before deletion. — Omegatron 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete, obviously insufficient research at AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And indeed before AfD, otherwise it would not have been nominated in the first place. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse per MartinRe what was technically a decision not to delete. I've reverted the article to the last non-redirect version and added the links given by Omegatron above.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.