Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizzicato (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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzicato (software)

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

Heavily edited by a user with an obvious conflict of interest (the developer). Having searched for sources, I couldn't find anything that would allow this product to be considered a notable one. Promo, notability and sourcing templates were all edit-warred out of the article. Stalwart111 04:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Accusations from blocked editor.

I chose that name only because I want to support the company work, as some other users of the products do from number of years. If you do not find anything in the product that makes it "notable", it is because you certainly did absolutely not test the demo ! I invite you to do so : [redacted] (Stalwart111 09:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)) and to come back after, not to (pre)judge my work, but to help me to find how to write my article better in a more encyclopedical style. It is my first work. In the contributors rules, there are "don't byte newbies !" and that is exactly what you do (having yourself written an article for a company which looks very commercial too). Thank you to test the product and show in which way you are a music software specialist. If I do not quote a lot works written by university teachers, it is that the software is not supported by a lot of financial interests and I quote the only references I find. And actually the ones I found are published on .com websites but include technical analysis and present how to master the program, so these are not bad references. Finally as I arrive so I do not master the syntax. Do I have the time to learn and contribute freely ?Arpmuswikicontrib[reply]

Sorry, but WP:AFD is not the place to further spam editors here with links to your product. WP:BITE is an important guideline but it generally doesn't extend to promo-spammers trying to use Wikipedia as the Yellow Pages. To be considered notable, a subject must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting products. Your username is an obvious violation of policy and has been reported (not by me). Yes, I have contributed to dozens of articles about companies, company owners and other organisations (corporate and charitable). You are welcome to do so also, as long as the companies in question meet inclusion criteria. Oh, and how-to guides are generally not considered great sources. Stalwart111 09:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're not allowed to remove template AFD notifications from the top of articles, so please don't. Removing that template won't stop the article from being listed here for deletion anyway. Stalwart111 09:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that yourself you have personal interests for a company which develop music software. You do not talk as an objective editor : notability is a very subjective criteria and instead of helping me to contribute better, you induce my identity. You are not interested in contributing to develop the knowledge corpus, but only interfere with other's work. That attitude can only be motivated by personal financial interests. You are not decided to test the program demo, as I suggested, just because you do not have the skills and knowledge to do so. That is precisely why I do not accept that you insert notifications related to my work. As I said, I mention the sources I find, and maybe "how to" are not equivalent to post-doctoral sources, nevertheless they help a lot of internet users (and not especially software) to learn something (it is the goal, here, and not defend some "cast spirit" as you do). So, unless you can prove you have skills in music notation software field, do not interfere any more in my work. And by the way, let new editors contribute at their own level and also readers who have lesser knowledge and not a very high academic background to discover novelties. It is not everyone who can produce in just one day a perfect article. The one I try to make has nothing to do with "yellow pages" : I begin to talk about technical aspects, but that cannot be done in one hour.Arpmuswikicontrib

You don't WP:OWN the article - your willingness to "accept" criticism is irrelevant. The product does not meet inclusion guidelines and was tagged that way. Again, please don't remove AFD tags - deleting them won't stop the article from being deleted anyway. That will just get you blocked. Only the supply of reliable sources that give your product significant coverage will save it. Stalwart111 10:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Stalwart111 11:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I removed a comment from an obvious block-evading IP sock. Stalwart111 14:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear violation of WP:PROMO; not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<comment redacted>

Delete - Obviously promotional, either by the product's actual author or by someone enamored of the product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- <redacted>
  - It would help if you could find some useful references, for example a major computer publication reviewing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The now-deleted comment, "The problem is that for little products, press is not so in a hurry", makes it blatantly obvious that the article's promoter is intending to use Wikipedia to try to ascribe artificial notability to his product. Nope. Can't do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed comments from block-evading IP and will now semi-protect this page for the duration of the discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC) (see WP:ANI#Promo-spammer on the loose -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Though promotional, it could be rewritten. There are two full reviews, neither based on PR, which is enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon piece isn't a review, it's a "how to". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the only "source" (listed at the end) for that article is the company that created the software being reviewed. So did the company provide those how-to instructions for Salon to reprint? I'm actually inclined to think that the TopTenReviews one is better... but not sufficient on its own. That and TTR has courted controversy in the past for its commercial (click-through advertising) relationships with the producers of the products it reviews. It came up in a separate AFD I participated in, I think. Not a deal-killer but surely a concern if it's the only "independent" source being offered, and might not be independent. Stalwart111 22:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I searched online and found numerous web pages that mention the software, doesn't that make the subject notable? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. "Mentions" are not what is required. See Wikipedia:Notability (software) (an essay) and WP:GNG (policy). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shouldn't have used the word "mention", please read "discuss" instead: substantial text is used to describe the software. It is available in share ware and free versions too.[1] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's from www.music-composing.com - a site set up to sell the product. See the notes at the bottom of the page. Stalwart111 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that, the link was shared to know whether clauses for "free software" could be used in relation to this software (looks weak though) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get where you're coming from. Yeah, it's available free, but that's a trial/demo version designed to encourage you to buy the full product later. I don't think there's any doubt this is an entirely commercial product, even if they drum up business with free samples. In fact, the company's representative tried to give me a trial version (see the hatted section above) claiming it would somehow prove notability. Stalwart111 22:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your patience and time, I don't know how good or otherwise the various web sites that mention the product are as I do not have the wherewithal to do so. I remain neutral in this discussion, I won't vote "keep" is all I say. I leave it to the better informed to decide.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The drama with which this started shouldn't preclude us from having a nice civilised chat about it. And it still has about 6 days to go. Stalwart111 23:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's more spam in this article than a WW2 shop, and with a name like that, if there was any coverage, it should be easy to find: there is no coverage, in anything other than how-to guides. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software article with poor references - the salon article is not from salon, but instead Demand Media, a content-farm with reliability problems and almost no editorial oversite; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a combination advertisement and tutorial, and .... the software has taken place in the global market. (?!?!?). Given text like this, notability is a side issue. This fairly obviously reads like a paid or COI placement, and non-article text like this should be deleted on sight pour encourager les autres. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 1 April 2013 (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.