Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TiMidity++

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - TP 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TiMidity++

[edit]
TiMidity++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not attribute reliable secondary sources and does not assert any notability. (WP:V, WP:N). I could not locate any sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment. Isn't this the standard MIDI player that's used on Linux systems? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned in a lot of books, press the "books" in the top of this page. And remember the program goes under the name "TiMidity" too (search e.g. "+Timidity +midi" to find the source). Christian75 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I can see several mentions in that list. Enough for verification. I can't see anything significant enough to justify a separate article (per WP:N). I'm open to redirection to a broader article. Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking over a few of the books pointed to by Christian, it seems TiMidity is recommended by several of them as the software synthesizer for Linux systems. In my opinion more than sufficient to establish independent notability. —Ruud
    • To be fair, none of the books explicitly recommend it. The first cites Wikipedia so isn't usable; the next few mention it in passing as a free tool they happened to have used in their examples; one just lists it, and so on. As a tertiary source, our coverage should be equally trivial. Unless you can point out something particularly significant that I missed. In any event, this is no longer a deletion discussion so can be closed: we can continue this on the talk page. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The books have very brief coverage of this. I can't even find one that details the kinds of synthesis this program provides. I wasn't able to find any in-depth articles on this, not even on linux.com. I don't see a reasonable target for a redirect. If this is kept, one might as well create an equally non-descript article about playmidi, which has equally shallow [cook]book coverage [2]: "such and such is a program that plays midi files on linux" (don't even bother saying what type of synthesis or instruments it provides). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell the only real use of this program was to use ripoffs of E-mu soundbanks, which were probably illegal. [3] [4]. Which is why sources about this "free" software don't bother saying much about using it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silly speculation. I've used this for years to legally play MIDI files under Linux using the freepats soundbank. —Ruud 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see there are some free soundbanks which are said not to sound as good [5]. However that doesn't change the rest of my observations. It's hard to even find a source that says what's the difference between TiMidity and FluidSynth. The 2002 MIDI Linux howto I cited above only gave as the sole reason for using timidity the ability to use the Gravis-converted E-mu soundbanks, which only emphasizes the lack of in-depth coverage. Your vote seems to be WP:IUSEIT; it's easy to assume that whatever software you use is highly notable and should be noted by others. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the stack of Linux manuals we found here, my assumption seems to be correct. (Note that I only voted keep after those those books were mentioned, I was sceptical of my assumption.) —Ruud 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for Wikipedia copies published as "books", there are are two conference proceedings mentioning/citing TiMidity and maybe 7 books, 5 of which have preview [6] [7] [8] [9] (there are many editions of this Red Hat / Fedora bible, all with similar one sentence coverage, but I count it only once) [10], including the cookbook above. Less than 10 citations, and no in-depth coverage in any, so I vote delete. Also, newer linux books tend to mention FluidSynth instead of this [11]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:49, 15 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TiMidity%2B%2B&oldid=1070010213"