Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TuxGuitar (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. v/r - T P 17:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TuxGuitar[edit]

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

'Delete' On this article's Talk Page I have made an extensive argument that this article does not meet the Notability Guidelines of Wikipedia because it fails to cite any Reliable Sources. I have provided an analysis of the referneces used for this article and have shown that they all fail to meet reliability standards. I have also addressed suggested new sources and have expressed my feeling that they are not reliable and/or "trivial mention" (see WP:GNG) (Lexandalf (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For what I can see, this is popular enough and there are enough reviews to establish notability. I've seen much worse articles, describing less notable stuff which nobody touches, so it doesn't seem to me this should be deleted. Arny (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD has been open since 15 August; however, I see no evidence that it was ever listed on an AfD log. The 7-day discussion period should begin now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see at least two full-fledged third party reviews of this program, and plenty of evidence that people are using it. The article might or might not need work, but we should keep it. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular program. It's referenced, sort of. It would be a shame if this were deleted. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Popularity is a moot point. "Sort of" referenced is the problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because keep votes are simply variations of WP:ILIKEIT. Third party refs are insignificant and do not demonstrate notabilty, merely existence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The only third-party references are boilerplate software site listings. Without reliable secondary referencing, there is no evidence that this subject is of general public note, anecdotal arguments regarding popularity aside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply not true. There are two reviews among the references, and one of them is from Full Circle Magazine.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rather think that Computeractive (a print magazine) is a more reliable source than Full Circle Magazine. Nevertheless, I'm happy to concede that those are secondary sources. Are two fairly short reviews sufficient to establish notability here, though? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's what we are here to figure out! The Full Circle review is two pages, with some screenshots. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2011 (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.