Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MultitrackStudio


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

MultitrackStudio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, no indication that it meets notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * delete This class of software is now pretty common, so mere existence is no proof of innovation or notability. This needs sources if it's to stay. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is substantive news coverage by Synthtopia, Sonic State, and Mix (magazine), in Electronic Musician and in a couple of books , and it's cited as a tool by two researchers . The OP should have emended the article, not listed it here. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you could provide links to Reliable Sources, instead of places that such may (or may not) exist, it would be helpful in showing notability. I've changed my opinion before on notability, but just saying to look "in that general direction" isn't really helpful.  If the sources exist, provide them.  If they are not (or cannot be) provided, then the article should be deleted.  Without the actual sources, it's a bit difficult to judge whether or not they qualify as Reliable Sources for establishing notability.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The news link was stepped on; I've fixed it. MultitrackStudio now has representative references for our current purpose; they're not yet integrated into the article. The salient points illustrated are (1) the app has been in continuous use for over a decade, (2) hardware makers consider compatibility with the app a selling feature, (3) respected publications recommend the app and keep their readers apprised of its progress, (4) the app is well-known enough to have found nonstandard use as a data recorder by researchers. (Who may also be jammin' with it in the evening; the pubs are silent on this point.) I'd like better references, but these I think are sufficient for WP:N. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, only Tallet et al. used it as a data recorder. Ho and Shih used it to create audio programming. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Looking through the supplied references....
 * 1) One paragraph in a larger article. Not *quite* a trivial mention, but nowhere near being a full article as needed for a RS to show notability.
 * 2) Reads like a press release. Hard to be certain, but it really looks like this one is a press release, or based on one, and thus not independent.
 * 3) Same problem. Appears to either be a press release, or based on one.
 * 4) Nearly trivial side-mention in what again appears to be a write-up of a press release. ("Company tells us that"...)
 * 5&6) Impossible to evaluate, no links. Being external books does not preclude them from being sources, but if I cannot check them, I cannot use them to make a notability judgement.
 * 7) The definition of a totally trivial reference. Topic is mentioned in a list/table.
 * 8) Another book, impossible to evaluate whether or not the reference qualifies as a RS for notability.

So the books might or might not show notability, but none of the links particularly do so. This really needs one or two articles in reliable media that are directly and fully about the topic, and that do not appear to be press releases or written from such. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources here, here, here (self published, probably unreliable) and here. Also mentioned in Electronic Musician Volume 21, Issues 7-12 - Page 58 -- Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:04, 3 December 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.