Deletion of ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player

Comment: of the four references in the article, none of them give in-depth coverage of ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player - the program has not "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per  - therefore, delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: No evidence of Wikipedia:Notability_(software) or general  notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm actually inclined to assume GF and it's not socking. It is however an issue of |Votestacking since the notifications to other editors are clearly not neutrally phrased. Please stop assuming that a difference of opinion on the reliability of sources means they're acting in bad faith. Shame we don't get wikipedian points, I wonder what I could spend them on since you can make your own signature if you feel like. While "barge in here" could be phrased differently, the viewpoint is valid - the arguments raised clash with various fundamental policies like |Reliable Sources and  -REASON|Reasons for Deletion, anyone who hasn't read them is going to struggle because the closing Admin will just ignore non-justified arguments. We aren't just making up our reasoning for some dramatic evil deconstructionist preference of ours
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:VOTESTACKING||WP:RS||WP:DEL)

Comment: I really do fully understand your reasoning, MySonLikesTrump, but it's just not valid here. I happen to think microtonal music is really cool too. But Wikipedia has rules, and those rules must be applied impartially. According to the rules, if something does not receive "significant coverage" in the media, it does not belong on its own page on Wikipedia. If ''ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player'' has/gets media coverage that brings it up to Wikipedia's notability standards, then it will be eligible to be the main subject of an article. My advice if you want to keep this article is that you read up closely on  and submit a bullet-pointed list of links from reliable sources if they exist, all together under your original Keep vote, that substantiate this article's notability '''with regards to Wikipedia's guidelines'''. I can't find enough good  sources to justify keeping this article, but if ''you'' can find them, that's the theoretical path to my Keep vote. '''A significant amount of  sources is what talks here.''' You can come up with as many arguments not based in guidelines that you want, but arguments based in guidelines prevail
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RELIABLE||WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: as a free piece of software that isn't downloaded, it's a little unclear whether this is more like NPRODUCT, NWEB or something else. I'm going to go with the easiest to satisfy - |GNG. However, I still don't think sufficient sourcing is available to satisfy it. I've also read through the arguments above, and I'm not seeing a reason that makes this "important to users" article a reasonable |Ignore All Rules case vs others the AfD community has declined in the past
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IAR)