Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoteWorthy Composer

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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteWorthy Composer

This article is chaotic. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure it's a mess with some advertising mixed in. However, chaos is not a reason to delete the page. It needs cleaning up not deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a reason for deletion. news.google.com shows a few hits for NoteWorthy Composer, making at least a prima facia case for notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, it's a bit of a mess, but this program, which has a fairly venerable history, does have the desired notability. Now for someone to clean it up...Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly a mess but, if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Notability does not seem to be a concern. MvjsTalking 01:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notable and verifiable (and venerable) as mentioned above. Advertising mixed in? Where? __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Does someone care to explain how it meets WP:N? Or is it a joke on based on its name? I don't see any sources to support notability. Googling for this is almost futile given the common words used. VG ☎ 07:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Keep. Thanks for pointing out sources. VG ☎ 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazeta article, ZDNet Belgium article, mention in the Telegraph, article noting use by prodigy, Article in the Age, another mention in the Telegraph, and it won the 1995 ZF-Davis 1995 Shareware Awards Competition for Multimedia. Even ignoring my suggestion to hit Google News, just straight googling "Noteworthy Composer" comes back with two pages of hits all about this program, which is better than googling "Michael Jackson".--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good work. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to scorewriter: Keep per Prosfilaes. "Chaotic" is a reason for improving an article, not deleting it. See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. My problem is that, of the bazillion WP:GHITS ([1]), none appear to amount to substantial news coverage that distinguishes NWC from other scorewriters. Finale and Sibelius are another story; they're considered the standard scorewriters. NWC is a bit simpler and cheaper and, while I use it myself, I'm having trouble finding sufficient WP:RS's to warrant an article distinct from scorewriter. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that NWC is also listed in List of scorewriters. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Based on a sample of music files that can be found in directories, it appears that the NWC user base includes classical, church, and educational musicians, as well as jazz or world-music composers" = WP:OR at its finest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is the standard score writing software used on the most comprehensive and widely used hymns site, the Cyber Hymnal. And for notability, see the list of news articles provided by Prosfilaes (I think s/he means to vote Keep, by the way); I came here looking for more up-to-date information about it and was astonished to find it up for deletion. I'm in the middle of something else at the moment but I'll see if I can clean it up a bit quickly if it's really a muddle. seglea (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, sources exist and many are already listed in the article. -- Banjeboi 17:22, 20 October 2008 (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.