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 per lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ToneXpress[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. ((prod)) denied by author. References are all to software download sites, not to legitimate software journals. Borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (author):

"Non-notable software product" - Please use a Notability Template to help establish this article notability rather than trash the article altogether.

"((prod)) denied by author" - I heavily expanded the article when I removed the ((prod)) tag. I assumed that is was no longer the case to use the ((prod)) tag.

"References are all to software download sites, not to legitimate software journals" - This is a closed-source shareware windows-only desktop application thus "software download sites" are the main places where you find these kind of software so it's only natural to have references to these sites. Although there are 500k+ google results for "DJ ToneXpress" I tried to add references to the most notable ones (like Cnet's Download.com where the software has an Editor's review). "legitimate software journals" that you are referring to, usually praise open-source/free software and, following your logic, this means that only open-source software deserve a page on Wikipedia.

"Borders on spam" - I disagree with this. I tried to write this article without praising the software and without asking people to buy it. Please edit any part of the article and remove the content you find offending/spam GeluKelu (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (1) The ((notability)) template is intended to indicate that the notability of a subject is in doubt. As the nominator, I did not doubt that the notability of this product was insufficient, so the proper path is to nominate for deletion. (2) I only noted that the ((prod)) was removed by the author as this is a common path for editors to attempt to keep their articles from being deleted. (3) Whatever the nature of the software, if it has not been covered in reliable sources than its notability is in doubt. (4) The "features" list reads like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedia article. If the article survives this deletion discussion, it will surely need to be cleaned up to avoid the promotional tone. However, I don't see the point in cleaning it up yet, as I don't believe the notability issue can be resolved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When constrained to the whole name google returns 330 unique hits, none of which are reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2010 (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.