Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantacrul

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tantacrul[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What a page history. Consistently questionable. Deleted, refused, AfC fail, AfD-worthy and now we're back here again, with a poorly sourced entry for a WP:GNG failing Youtuber whose only claim to notability is presented as his use of Audacity and MuseScore. It's not enough to get past the line and this time I'm asking you, ladies and gentlemen, to Delete and Salt to boot. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Ireland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this person has three different reasons to be considered notable.

First, his YouTube work, which apart from being popular, is excellently researched and detailed. Second, his status as the spokesperson and leader of MuseScore - the most popular notation application in the world. Third, his recent appointment to the position of spokesperson and leader of Audacity - a very well known and widely used application which (according to the Audacity WIKI) has been downloaded over 200 million times.

The proposal to delete states that his claim to notability is that he 'uses' MuseScore and Audacity. This is not accurate. He runs both projects. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)— Sylvester Krakow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Aside from the sources already in the page (that already mention his important role in two very important music software), a simple Google Scholar search (try "Martin Keary", too) bring up some notable mentions discussing his role in music on social media, modern music encoding, and even a dissertation saying that he coined a new music term [1]. Furthermore, even if this page was deleted, I adamantly oppose SALTing, as a great portion of the sources are super recent, and he seems to be climbing in notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In case it wasn't clear in my first reply. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)— Sylvester Krakow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: as an author of 2 popular software, he should remain. Craigwikiman (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 06:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, he is not the author, just the current product lead. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If he's more noteworthy as an open source leader, composer and designer than a "failing Youtuber", moving the article to Martin Keary might be enough -- Dänenleo (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)— Dänenleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hello! sorry to bother, but I believe the original proposal meant "failing WP:GNG" rather than failing YouTuber. If the article doesn't get deleted and doesn't get moved, I think Martin Keary would make an excellent redirect, as that's what some people may be searching. Very sorry for being nitpicky about the wording, I hope you have a good day. All the best,

– DirkJandeGeer щи 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked closely enough to determine whether this should be deleted, but many of the above comments are WP:ITSIMPORTANT non-arguments that will likely get discounted by the closing admin. And the above comment is Dänenleo's fourth total edit and first edit since 2018. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the arguments to keep seem to me to be pretty clearly about notability and not about 'importance'. Does he have wide visibility? Yes. Is his work discussed in public forums, articles and papers? yes. Does he have significant influence in things that affect a lot of people? Yes.

The initial call to delete seems motivated by a general dislike of the YouTube medium. It is fine to have this opinion but it is not massively relevant to the question of notability.

My opinion would also be that the page should remain 'Tantacrul' simply because that's how he is better known (checked Google trends to confirm). Sylvester Krakow (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Audacity, probably better known than himself or his other projects. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better known than MuseScore? And besides, this page doesn't just focus on Audacity nor is it his own project. He is just the product lead. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only used Audacity to be fair. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Software product lead' doesn't feature in the notability guidelines. The sources in this article do not amount to notability, being in the main passing mentions and devoted to the software, not its product lead. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is the spokesperson for both apps though - specifically because of his visibility on software design, which has has talked about a lot on his channel. So, he makes public announcements for both MuseScore and Audacity - and evidently, the media pick up on what he says and quote him (as many of the references on the wiki page demonstrate). It's worth mentioning that his combined videos about MuseScore and Audacity have millions of views. So he is notable because a lot of people generally know him to be the spokesperson. I think that the reality of how well-known he is outweighs the question of whether a 'product lead is notable' in the abstract. In actuality, he is notable.

You add his YouTube following on top of this and the notability seems pretty evident. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think that he's too noteworthy to warrant a page. Points for the image being CC0, though. SWinxy (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These sources [2],[3][4][5] only talk about the company he runs. I don't see coverage specific to this person. A redirect can be created to Audacity but make sure it will be protected or be regularly watched. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Our notability guidelines require that we have independent sources that are "independent" and address the subject "directly and in detail". None of the sources that are independent address the subject directly and in detail. As such, I can't see a good policy based argument for keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. As the keep votes thus far have primarily been from single-purpose accounts and one blocked editor with a COI, please consider the strength of the arguments in your close per WP:POLL.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.