Talk:BIAS Peak

Professional sound production Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

If there's a page for Digidesign's Pro Tools (which this page was modeled after), and many many other similar software applications, then there can be a page for Peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacw123 (talk • contribs)

This page should not be speedy deleted because it cites Power Tools for Peak Pro. A published book on the subject of the software package prima facie suggests enough notability that I recommend the speedy be dropped or a fuller case presented at AfD. Wareh (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its clearly spam, written by a COI. would you prefer I re-tag as such? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the COI is a problem, but, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion" (WP:COI). I suggest you apply our content policies as aggressively as you like (though not, I hope, vindictively), while retaining the article in some form because of the topic's notability. I don't imagine a tide of support for deletion at AfD as long as the content problems are treatable with a few edits. If you check out the first few pages of the cited further reading title with Amazon Reader, I think you'll find that this WP:RS (it seems an unaffiliated work and is by the same author as unrelated titles from other publishers such as ISBN 0078812097) verifies an equal or greater amount of puffery as is on display here. (The subtitle is "the Mac's most powerful audio editor"; the preface explains why composers and musicians flock to its powerful tools; etc.) Wareh (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However G11 would apply this is basically an ad for their product written by them, see the section below this as proof. I would G11 this and be done with it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to point out that the section below is not an endorsement of a speedy deletion (under G11 or any other guideline); rather an attempt to either find consensus on the article or nominate it for deletion as outlined in OTRS notice: Proposal for deletion below. Furhermore, you are asked not to add multiple tags to an article that essentially say the same thing. Accordingly, I have removed the redundant tags. Please consult Wikipedia:Be reasonable and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For the record, I hold no opinion as to the article's subject matter. Asav (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam huh? You're just a vindictive no life wiki editor, get over yourself. Thanks for deleting a bunch of content out of the article, in your "infinite wisdom". Again, how is this article so different from the article about Digidesign's Pro Tools software, which contains lists of features, etc, etc.?? Oh, it's because they probably donate money to Wikipedia - talk about a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.46.103 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Wikipedia is edited by a conglomerate of volunteers, and donations have no influence on the content of its articles. Asav (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS notice: Proposal for deletion

OTRS has received notice that this page content is disputed. Since there does not seem to be any consensus as to the subject's notability, I suggest it be nominated for deletion by standard practice rather than proposal for speedy deletion. Please refer to the Guide to Deletion. Asav (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BIAS Peak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016222754/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan03/articles/biaspeak.asp to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan03/articles/biaspeak.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]