Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traktor (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traktor[edit]

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

Article which fails to assert WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It is really a terrible article, about DJ software and Native Instruments. Article has OR, Advert, Inline citation and lack of sources tags, since 2011, but nothing has been done to update the article. The author 92.225.80.126 also overwrote the original Traktor article, the production which was responsible for the 'Where's Your Head At' song, which may have been notable. As software goes I don't think it is notable. Also editor [[1]] almost seems to be single use. scope_creep 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searches quickly turned up a review on Engadget [2] and a book about the product [3]. We decide notability based on whether sources exist, not whether they've been properly cited in the article. They exist. Msnicki (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Traktor (software) without keeping a redirect to unhide the original (2005) deletion, the name is ambiguous, e.g., w:de:Traktor, DAB w:de:Traktor (Begriffsklärung) (various topics incl. sports), etc. Then let's discuss or delete the renamed page. –Be..anyone 💩 04:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no grounds for deletion. Notability is easily established; there are several full-length books on the subject, many substantial articles in major music magazines, and the software is used by numerous notable musicians. The article has many incoming Wikipedia links. If the nominator is concerned about quality issues and that nothing has been done to update the article, perhaps they could update the article! Feel free to create a new "Traktor (filmmaking collective)" or similar article too. They also certainly meet notability requirements, and there are still existing incoming links, for example in Chain of Fools (film). You can easily do better starting from scratch than the original stub article, which may be largely a copyright violation taken from the IMDb bio anyway (hard to say which came first). I don't see a need to rename the current article, the existing disambiguation link is sufficient. IamNotU (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now only if it can be improved but if not, and someone would rather take time for that, Draft. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved. For more information, see WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there's a consensus that the subject is indeed notable, reliable sources are easily found, and the article could be improved by editing - if only someone would make the effort - then it shouldn't be removed from the main article space, no matter how "terrible" it is currently, or how long it's been that way. Except for extreme cases of spam or copyright infringement, if the existing content is hopelessly irredeemable, then at most it should be stubbed. But that's a content discussion for the article's talk page, not AfD. "Needs improvement" isn't grounds for deletion. There's no deadline for improvement, and one shouldn't be artificially imposed through an AfD nomination. -- IamNotU (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly notable software for the DJ world, if not THE software for the DJ world. Pretty obvious keep.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DeathLibrarian. This is the leading DJ software, and that's a significant market. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @IamNotU, i.e it should be stubbed, and perhaps add an entry made into requested articles, to get it updated. I'm not planning to do any work on it. scope_creep (talk) 11:58, 04 May 2016 (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.