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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RiffWorks[edit]

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

This article is written in a highly unencyclopedic manner. One of the main contributors, User:Mikkidw, appears to be an employee of the developer, as shown by a message on the article talk page from three years ago, requesting that an editor should ask for reviewer copy before working on the article. It reads like an advertisement, listing features. The software itself is not particularly notable - there are no in-line citations; just a compiled list of "references" - perhaps every bit of press that the program has received. If anyone finds a substantial amount of material about this program online and would want to improve this article to bring it up to encyclopedic standard then I will not support a deletion, but it's been in a similar state to this for more than three years. Taylor (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the edit history for the sole image in the article, User:Mikkidw states she is the VP of Marketing for Sonoma WireWorks, the company that develops RiffWorks. This is surely WP:CONFLICT? Taylor (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can anyone vouch for this software's notability? If it is notable enough I would be willing to clean it up. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 15:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up per Macworld, Macworld again, and Wired coverage. --Pnm (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, per the admittedly weak, yet still third-party, significant and reliable, sources provided by Pnm. The first MacWorld article is written from a press release, and all three are short, but that's still something. Avram (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2011 (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.