Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TiMidity++ (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TiMidity++

[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)

NN product, fails the GNG. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability tagged for over a decade. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus, with the two keep proponents claiming "mentioned in a lot of books" and coming in with WP:IUSEIT rationales, and neither responding to statements that the extant coverage only consisted of namedrops. Ravenswing 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to it's usage as standalone player it is also used as synthesizer engine in several video games such as OpenTTD (see here for evidence of that fact) and a few game engines - which perhaps could be mentioned in the article as well. Timidity also has a reasonably comprehensive article in the Archlinux wiki which does speak to it's notability (of course articles in other wikis have no influence on this wiki, but interesting nonetheless). More relevant to the relevance discussion perhaps are several mentions in scientific papers, such as this or this, which make use of this software. welterde, 2001:678:C70:0:6:3:0:9 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And my response is that none of that matters: an article's suitability for a Wikipedia article doesn't rest on an unsourced article in another wiki, or casual namedrops in a couple papers, but in significant coverage in reliable sources. That is wholly lacking here. Ravenswing 11:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just casual name drops, but that they used timidity++ in their work. Not quite the same as merely mentioning it exists. welterde, 2001:678:C70:0:6:3:0:9 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the arguments mentioned by the first anonymous voter, this software has two chapters dedicated to it in a book called Linux Sound Programming ISBN 978-1-4842-2495-3 (chapters 21 and 28) from a major publisher (Springer). I would consider this non-trivial coverage. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't go just by chapter headings—what does the text say? Linux Sound Programming is more of a how-to manual, and the "chapters" (doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2496-0_21; doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2496-0_28) are just code examples with zero background on the software itself or its importance. I'm struggling to see what can be cited from it at all. Mentions in scientific papers are not significant coverage. Mentions in the user-generated Arch wiki (or any other unreliable source) do not indicate external notability. Not seeing any useful redirect targets either. Altogether, lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how what kind of book it's covered in is relevant. It's still significantly/independently covered in that source, even though you might not find it usable to cite. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2020 (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.