Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidiNotate Composer

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. Given that a couple of opinion changed after the rewrite, and that the author gets a 'keep' for participating and trying hard, both the numbers and the debate are in no consensus. -Splash talk 00:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

MidiNotate Composer
non-notable commercial self promotion Jdavidb 23:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ad. Dottore So 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the same thing here as in the other one: Where's the ad?  Otherwise, this one's more clearly in the Keep column:  21K Google hits, notability established.  Sure, it doesn't have the notability of the Cakewalk MIDI composer, but would you delete Arby's just because it wasn't as notable as McDonald's?  -- Grev -- Talk 02:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is in keeping with other articles about other music software in the same category. I used the other articles as examples to work from, and was offering this information to inform others about what types of music software programs are available.  You can check out the other articles in the same category, and I think you will find that they are in the same vein as this one.    Sherryc 03:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as ad. It just smells like a press release. I'll gladly change my vote if someone (Sherryc?) rewrites it to smell like - say - an encyclopedia entry instead. Bunchofgrapes 04:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC) See vote change below.
 * Same comment as above &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bunchofgrapes sums up my thoughts. --GraemeL (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ad. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) No Vote. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Response to rewrite request I would be happy to rewrite the article to sound more "encyclopedic".  My apologies if the article sounded too "personal" - I've found many entries on Wikipedia to be quite helpful to me in finding out about many resources, and I was merely adding a voice to that community.  I'm not quite clear that a rewrite would be appropriate at this time, though.  It seems that it would be more appropriate as a resubmission after the vote is decided for the current article. Is this correct?  Sherryc 22:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewriting during this voting process is actually encouraged; much better to rewrite now than to recreate the page later. Thanks for checking. Bunchofgrapes 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. Amren (talk)  01:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Ok, I can definitely rewrite it, but I'd appreciate some input. I apparently shouldn't use existing articles as a model, because I did that and it's caused the ruckus :) What are your suggestions? I'll start with 1) use third person rather than second person 2)more background on the evolution of the software 3) noted capabilities.  Does this seem appropriate?  Please remember, this article is listed in the category of "music software", and you can check out the other articles in the category.  To my eye, this one follows the same model, so I'm honestly trying to find out what the major problems are here so we can make this an informational entry.  I see part of the strength of the Wikipedia as giving current information about a myriad of topics, as well as resources related to those topics (hence the "external links" sections).  I want to do this right!  Thanks. Sherryc 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Response All the above would be good. Plus, I suggest you use an article like Finale notation program as a basis: it's the most well-rounded article of the Scorewriter bunch. You also need references to claims such as "in wide use" and so on. Your willingness to improve this article is very welcome! Wombat 17:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite complete I've rewritten the article, and would like some constructive feedback. Please let me know what you think, or if you see room for improvement. I've condensed two articles into this one, with the thought of deleting the other one, following the example in the Finale notation program as suggested above.  Thanks. Sherryc 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep based on rewrite. It's a little rah-rah, with more detail than I honestly think the subject deserves in Wikipedia, but it reads largely like an encyclopedia entry now, I suppose. Bunchofgrapes 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep based on rewrite. Thanks for doing this, Sherryc. It still needs some more evaluation of pros and cons (perhaps third-party) and perhaps a comparison with other programs, showing the differences between it and its competitors. And I agree with Bunchofgrapes: the article is disproportionately long and detailed, but that's not a reason to delete it. Wombat 10:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the tips, and the votes of confidence! I thought about including some comparisons with other programs, but I was afraid that someone might think I was trying to write a "product comparison review" as advertising or something :)  So, I went more with the "what this particular program has" approach (hence the listing of capabilities) so that people would know about these particular programs.  Which approach might be better?  I don't want to make it a "this versus that" type of article - I've seen some of the discussions on some of the other software articles, and I'm not trying to make a "this is definitively better than that" article.  I'm just trying to inform folks about a program that I've found useful, and that others might want to know about since there is a "music software" category in Wikipedia.  Thoughts? Suggestions?  Thanks! Sherryc 16:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.