Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PriMus


 * 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   delete. Shimeru (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

PriMus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Can't find any real evidence of notability. COntested Prod, with Prod removed with reason "just as notable as many in Category:Scorewriters." A search on +Primus +Scorewriter turns up practically nothing. There is a review attached to the article, but I don't know if it's a significant publication or if the review is enough to justify notability. I will concede that finding reliable news coverage, reviews etc is made more difficult by the fact it is a very common product name, there is a lot of Primus out there. If someone can find better than I, and can prove notability then so be it. Canterbury Tail  talk  23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * PriMus is a quit new product. So it is evident that there is not so much information. But if you spell PriMus with a capital M you'll get more results on the web. For users who worked with other scorewriters before, the release of PriMus meant a little revolution... There are features that are unique! So I do find evidence of notability. Columbus Soft is a small Software Inc. that does not invest in Marketing or advertising. I am Betatester of this notation program, that is why I know about the Mac release or the success at school usage. I already tried but it is hard to proove that by third party sources... these kind of information is normally announced via intern mails. Do you have a proposal how to manage this problem? Maybe I delete these sentences until there will be a public announce on their webpage!? Cachsten (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia Wikipedia relies on citations from reliable, secondary sources. Although PriMus may be notable to you, Wikipedia needs citations that qualify for its own article. If the article is deleted, Wikipedia still has some basic information about PriMus on List of scorewriters. --dbolton (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the article has been improved and corrected many times. It contains important information about engraving and the notation software PriMus. So I do not see a reason to delete this article. There is no continuative information on the List of scorewriters about PriMus. 78.55.71.73 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no indication of notability in the article, no independent reliable sources, no references to support it being notable per WP:Notability. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's unclear that the one review is from a reliable sources, but there are no others. The software may become notable int he future, but it does not appear to be so right now. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like nice software, but it's not quite notable enough yet. Thparkth (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2010 (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.