Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidiNotate Composer: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:43, 12 September 2005

Revision as of 00:11, 20 September 2005

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[[Template:Afd top|.]] 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>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 00:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

===[[MidiNotate Composer]]===

non-notable commercial self promotion [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 23:07, 9 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. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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[[Template:Afd bottom|.]]</div>