Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MixSCAN

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MixSCAN[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional piece. No notability (A7 tag removed). I'd have tagged it G11 too for its tone. It came to attention today after >4 years because of related article (MixBANK) created by the software's publisher Dubset Media. At the very least needs more pairs of eyes to consider its tone/notability. Bazj (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and non-notable. I deleted earlier MixBANK and blocked the user account due to username issues. They created that article solely to promote their product. They contributed to the related article in question here, which prompted an A7 notice. This was changed and here we are. It would need work to asseert notability. Current sources as of this writing are non-RS -- Alexf^(talk) 12:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do we even have a separate article for this? There is a already a subsection on the article of the company which mentions this software and that is sufficient. This page seems to be only useful for promoting the product. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have nothing to do with the company but wrote the list of music software article and this software has importance to the DJ community just as other royalty trackers are important to the intellectual property of songwriters and artists. I agree with the delete crew that it IS promotional, but suggest fixing rather than the much easier action of just deleting. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, and just because it's currently hype doesn't mean it is not notable, and if edited, important for wiki. I'm happy with wiser minds and consensus however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdecalculus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 March 2016‎

Delete as my searches only found a few expected links. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of this article (Mattbishop543) has edited only this article and Thefuture.fm, which is connected to the subject of this article. This suggests some sort of WP:NPOV or WP:COI violation. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references with significant coverage. Mashable ref is mainly about the company, not the software; Mixscan is mentioned only incidentally. Business Insider article is very short, and again only an incidental mention of the software, not in depth coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage focused on the software rather than the company.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2016 (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.