Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reason (software)


 * 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   keep. A cleanup is needed here. Tone 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason (software)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article is loaded with self links and adverts. This seems more aimed to selling the product than any other factor. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. I am also nominating the following related marketing campaign pages:

Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the main page. This software is widely used by electronic musicians. The article is promotional, with a lot of extraneous content. But the solution to promotional language is editing, not deletion, especially for a six year old article about widely used software. Hairhorn (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the main page: Per this, this, this, this, and this. Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't believe that reviews in industry magazines count for establishing notability (or if they do, they shouldn't count for much). If this were the case, then just about every throwaway product that was reviewed once or twice would be considered notable. Books published independently on the software do help to establish notability, so we should try on focus on things like that, not simply the fact that it's been reviewed. &mdash; λ (talk | contribs) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually seems to pass WP:NOTABILITY; the advertising parts need to be cleaned up and the article needs work but deletion is not justified.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 03:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: While it appears to be notable enough to have an article of its own, this article reads like blatant advertising. About 90% of the article should be cut out; there's no need for a laundry list of features on a Wikipedia page. &mdash; λ (talk | contribs) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (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.