Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MusicMaster (music notation 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMaster (music notation software)[edit]

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

This article is utter trash. Aside from its poor format (no lead section, grammar mistakes, tone) this is not at all written in the style or spirit of Wikipedia. Some points:

I can see no notability on this topic.
It is an orphan article.
This is a clear advertisement for the product.
The tone is terrible. Some examples:

There is no getting round the fact that musical notation can be very complex and so, to some extent, 'easy to use' and 'comprehensive' are incompatible aims in the field. Whether MusicMaster has managed to get the balance right remains to be seen, but reviews have been favourable, and have all stressed that the package is easy to use.

- Musical symbols are also entered from the computer keyboord using the symbol which, with a bit of imagination, looks most like the musical symbol.
- Musicmaster is still relatively new and there are a few rough edges on the software. The early versions were not as stable as they could have been, and had a tendency to crash for no apparent reason. However, these problems now seem to have largely been resolved.
There is primarily a single contributor for this article.

Frankly, I strongly considered nominating this for a Speedy Delete. It does not belong on WP. Timneu22 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gave it article the benefit of doubt with a request for reliable sources. None were added and I subsequently forgot about the article. It should definitely be deleted.--dbolton (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; promotional for non-notable product by SPA. Haakon (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that, as-written, the article is promotional is not a reason to delete. However, no evidence of any nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 03:28, 27 November 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.