Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record (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 delete. Smashville^talk 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record (software)

non-notable, unreleased software Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "...an unreleased music software program..." 'nuff said. eaolson (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. "...an unreleased music software program..." There are many pages on Wikipedia devoted to soon to be released software. In fact, as soon as I find the header that states, "this software is soon to be released..." I will add it. I'm new here, so bear with me. In fact, if an admin is reading this, I wouldnt mind a pointer to the template. Thanks.

Oh, and for the record, its currently in beta.Ihegba (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No specific claim of notability about the software, and the absence of independent sources means it also fails general notability. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not Delete~~ What Qualifies as notability? Reply and I shall quantify.

There are plenty of reviews, and the product is referenced on the Propellerhead Software page, and not by me. I simply thought I would help by creating a stub for that link that can be expanded upon when the product is released. If you so insist that there needs to be significant notability other than that and the many previews online in news, then state what is required or provide me with a link to it.

The tabloids themselves were not included in the form of a public reception section in order to keep the stub lightweight. Ihegba (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, a procedural note: it's standard practice for each person to only make one non-vote, so I've struck the duplicate "not delete". Second, notability has already been defined for Wikipedia purposes. In this case, it's really the general notability guidelines that are in play and the lack of independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What of the other issues I mentioned, like the independent reviews being added. I shall reply further below to keep this readable. Ihegba (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the merits of this article, but if it's deleted, it should be replaced with a redirect to Record (computer science). —Korath (Talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slight mistake, this article is not about the recording process, but a new product being brought out by Propellerhead Software called Record. Ihegba (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing all the points I have added non-media and non-WP:COI (EDIT:and WP:RS) breaching links to the references on the article, and specified that it is unreleased software via a template. Other than that, I do not belive it breaches any rules of general notability, as it now contains references independent of the subject. If I am wrong, please notify me. Ihegba (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:RS and probably should be a speedy delete as spam. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? I directly addressed that two posts up, and corrected them, so you are either lying, or you failed to look at the links properly.Ihegba (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I am retarded, or have a mental illness that makes me blind to this, but after reading WP:N, repeatedly 5 times from top to bottom, I fail to see how this article fails. IT IS NOT SPAM. How could it be spam? Follow the darn links, its a program that exists and it has no relation to the actual process of recording and because you have not looked at the article properly you fail to see that. This is making me irate, so many people are looking at it, saying "hey this has nothing to do with software recording" and then voting delete. READ THE ARTICLE PROPERLY BEFORE VOTING Ihegba (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that no person has made any attempt to edit or improve the article, only criticize non-constructively. I expected this place to be one of collaboration. What happened to WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT? Ihegba (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: seems to meet the WP:GNG, but I can't say I really have any opinion outside of that fact, apart from that it is clearly not spam Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of those references is meaningful and in the absence of any significant coverage as required this fails the GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Actually, after a little more reviewing I have to agree with Ukexpat, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to make another as to that significant coverage judgement after googling Propellerhead Record? Ihegba (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.