Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidiNotate Composer: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
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.
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
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. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 00:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
===[[MidiNotate Composer]]===
non-notable commercial self promotion [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 23:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Line 10 ⟶ 16:
*'''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? [[User:Sherryc|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. [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Spam. [[User:Amren|Amren]]
*'''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. [[User:Sherryc|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! [[User:Randywombat|Wombat]] 17:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Line 17 ⟶ 23:
*'''Keep''' based on rewrite. Thanks for doing this, [[User:Sherryc|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 [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]]: the article is disproportionately long and detailed, but that's not a reason to delete it. [[User:Randywombat|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! [[User:Sherryc|Sherryc]] 16:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion|undeletion request]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
| |||