Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player


 * 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. Despite considerable volume from one editor (even without considering apparent socks), the discussion was very lopsided in indicating that there is not sufficient evidence of notability for this subject. RL0919 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability for this software. ... disco spinster   talk  01:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For the following reasons, this article is notable and therefore should not be removed:

1. The ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player article describes the only online program that provides the features that are described in this article.

2. There is no other program (online or otherwise) that provides the ability to create a midi file that can play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.

3. The microtonal community (i.e. virtually all 21st century composers) will be missing out if they are not made aware of this free online program.

I thank you for keeping this worthwhile article in Wikipedia.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The person who deleted this article apparently deletes many, many articles without spending any time to review the notability of the articles that they are deleting.

As an example, in the Microtonal_music article, under the section of "Creating microtonal music", they deleted the text which described how to create microtonal music, so the section made no sense after their edit.

On 7/30/19, after I created the "Creating microtonal music" section in the Microtonal_music article, I received messages at my website from four college professors who thanked me for creating the only tool which allows them and their students to play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.

The person who deleted this article, and incorrectly edited the section in the Microtonal_music article, is causing damage to Wikipedia's reputation.

I sincerely hope that a high-level administrator takes a good look at the full history of the person who deleted this article.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ahem, I like to think I'm a pretty high-level administrator here. The article is not deleted, of course; it's nominated for deletion. Discospinster is in fact the only person who stands between us and complete irrelevance. If you want to consider editors to support keeping this article, you will have to cite reliable secondary sources that prove it deserves an article. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player program was mentioned in the Microtonal_music article (with a favorable personal response from four college professors) two weeks before the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article was created. That in itself proves that the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article is relevant and notable to the Microtonal community.

The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article (which is being considered for deletion) contains citations from 3 reputable websites:

https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html

https://www.w3.org/TR/webmidi

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API

Take a look at Discospinster's talk section. It would seem to be very difficult for them to truly judge each article's notability, considering the huge quantity of articles that they are deleting.

Again, why would someone delete text which describes how to create microtonal music, in a section entitled "Creating microtonal music" (see the Microtonal_music article).

Thank you again for your reply.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: MySonLikesTrump, I understand your reasoning behind wanting to keep this article, but please realize that "notable" has a relatively narrow definition on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability requirements are unrelated to any of your three points. From WP:N: To be notable under the general notability guideline, a subject has to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Has this piece of software been covered in reliable independent news or other sources? I don't see any on Google, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. K.Koopa (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is the ONLY program (online or otherwise) that provides the ability to create a midi file that can play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card. Deleting this article will deny the entire microtonal community of reading about this free website on Wikipedia. Microtonal music does not receive "significant coverage" in the media, but that is not a reason to deny its importance to the artistic world.

I understand how your rule would normally apply when deciding if an article should be accepted about a person. However, 90% of the products listed in the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article have NOT "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For that reason, and the reasons that I previously described, this case certainly deserves an exception.

I really don't want to inform the heads of all the music departments that use MidiPro.org that Wikipedia refused to accept an article that describes something that they have already deemed to be incredibly important to their professors and students, just because Wikipedia feels it has not yet received "significant coverage".

Again, I understand why you have to deny articles that have little notability or relevance. However, that is not the case here.

Please consider all these issues when making your decision. Thank you again for your consideration.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - some of your arguments are more likely to concern editors considering your arguments than convince them. Things like "The microtonal community (i.e. virtually all 21st century composers) will be missing out if they are not made aware of this free online program." - the article doesn't exist to advertise software (even free software). If it was viewed as overly advertorial that would be grounds for deletion in its own right.


 * I picked 7 of the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers list to check. 5 of them were very clearly notable, with various forms of good sourcing. One was iffy and another probably should be nominated for deletion. So it's not a case that this one has high coverage in comparison - though that would generally be irrelevant, it's worth reading Other Stuff Exists.


 * I'm not sure if "I really don't want to inform the heads of all the music departments ..." was supposed to be an odd threat, but its presence is a bit random. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:GNG 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 WP:RELIABLE 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 WP:RELIABLE 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. K.Koopa (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - 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. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No prejudice against refunding a copy to Nosebagbear (talk)


 * Keep - Within the hundreds of references and links in the Microtonal_music article, there is not a single mention of any other MIDI program that creates microtonal music. Removal of the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article would lesson the value of the Microtonal_music article, and would be doing a great disservice to the contemporary classical music community.

Four music professors who learned about this product from the Microtonal_music article contacted me through MidiPro.org, to inform me that they are recommending this program to their students. If this article is removed, other music scholars will not be made aware of this program that greatly increases the usage of microtonal music. That makes this article deserving of a unique exception, even though it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources". MySonLikesTrump (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how well that holds up - the name is quite specific, and it's unlikely to be searched unless you already know of it (in which case use can't be too contingent on this article). If there is micro-industry-wide adoption of it, then that's plenty of other routes individuals can use. Without reliable sources we have no way of making sure that what visiting readers see actually is a reliable impression. We exist to inform them, not just act as a guiding post to the website. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Regarding your concern "Without reliable sources we have no way of making sure that what visiting readers see actually is a reliable impression": If MidiPro.org is malicious then people will complain, and then you blacklist MidiPro.org.

Of the 50 programs listed at Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, very few have "reliable sources". Except for MidiPro.org, every program on that list has to be downloaded at the user's risk. MidiPro.org is the only program on that list that does not require any downloads (or registration), so it is the safest program shown in that article.

MidiPro.org was created 2/1/2017. A Google search shows no negative reports whatsoever. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I never stated that it might be malicious, and we don't "blacklist" any product - we have articles for downright dangerous places on the web to visit. Instead it is purely the accuracy of the content inside the article we endeavour to demonstrate and as a tertiary source we specifically do so with reliable secondary sources. In any case, we're looking for notability, and nothing indicated thus far is so far outside the norm as to warrant Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If "the accuracy of the content inside the article" is the issue, you can simply go to the website to see it is exactly as described: https://MidiPro.org

You can also see that all the features in the article are described in the Help File: https://MidiPro.org/Help.php

If I was to spend money to get reviews on several additional websites, I am afraid that you would continually say that those websites are not good enough.

Here is a reliable secondary source, is this good enough? https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html

Anyone with common sense can see that MidiPro.org is legit and relevant, and that Wikipedia users would benefit by having it appear in all applicable categories. If you delete this article, your inflexible policies are stifling innovation. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MySonLikesTrump, where shall I start. First, you are not citing any secondary sources. You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do. Well, you can, since in fact you are. Second, I don't care how many times you say keep, you're still just one person. Third, no, we are not going to go to some website to judge the accuracy of this or that content unless it is a secondary source. "Videoconverterfactory" is not acceptable via WP:RS; look it up. Finally, we're not in the business of doing innovation--that's really what MySpace is for. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sending the URL of this section to the Music Department heads at 15 Universities who use MidiPro.org regularly, so they can see the arrogant, nasty and disrespectful remarks that Wikipedia admins make to people who try to contribute to Wikipedia, and so they can inform their students to never waste their time trying to submit a useful article to Wikipedia. Drmies said this me: "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do.", and "we're not in the business of doing innovation--that's really what MySpace is for." Really? Do you talk to people like that in real life, or only when you're hiding in your room? MySonLikesTrump (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Let's take a look at the nominated page first. It does not look like an encyclopedia's article at all, but it is a very good home page for the web product in question. (I should say this product needs one like this.) But Wikipedia is not a free web host nor is it a fast ticket to fame. Now, the question is: Can this article not be saved through normal editing? Unfortunately, my web search results were fruitless. This product is yet to have any impact. And I wonder if it appropriate give an advice to our friend User:MySonLikesTrump. You see, my esteemed colleague, you have not been adhering to talk page layout guidelines or AfD contributions guideline. And this is bad. My life experience tells me people often don't get what they deserve when they don't give a good impression. And you're not giving a good impression. Flowing dreams (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Five of the eight references are to the program's own website, two don't even mention ADSR or MidiPro, and the remaining one, videoconverterfactory.com, only features trivial coverage and is not RS. Not notable. - Scio c (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I removed all inappropriate citations from the article. Any other suggestions will be greatly appreciated. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Music Department heads from two separate universities informed me of the following website that I was previously unaware of, so I added a citation in the article to the Classical Archives (the largest classical music site in the world), who stated the following in 2017: "MidiPro.org is the only Online Midi Editor".

The Classical Archives was created in 1994, and has never had any advertising or user-entered editorial whatsoever. Their statement ("MidiPro.org is the only Online Midi Editor") has been prominently displayed on their website for more than two years (since at least April 26 2017): https://web.archive.org/web/20170426053227/https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html

Several universities are actively following this dispute, since they hope that this extremely relevant article remains in Wikipedia. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - while it probably does satisfy secondary, and I'm happy to concede it's reliable, there remains no way that this satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Have you considered adding a sub-section to the primary MIDI article? The requirements for inclusion in an article are much lower than to possess an entire article. As a side note, I read AfD content within about 24 hours, and all my AfDs are watchlisted - you don't need to drop a notice onto my talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for your reply, and for your advice. The problem with a sub-section is that this article will then not appear in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers. This article has more notability than most of the articles that are currently listed in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, and it makes no sense that the ONLY Online Midi Editor does not appear in that list, so please post a Keep. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't actually know what doesn't appear in that list, because it's not there. At least 2 other entries have been removed in the past. There may be others on the list that shouldn't have articles (and thus appear on the list). 5/6 out of the 7 I checked did have better sources than this article, but that would indicate at least a few would be potential AfD targets. That no-one has removed them yet can't be used to support another article's ongoing existence. Otherwise a small pool of unsourced articles could be used to support endless numbers, and those would support the original pool. It's explained a bit better in Other Stuff Exists. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it still doesn't make sense that ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player should not be listed in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, since ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player has been verified by a reliable source to be the only Online Midi Editor in existence, which gives it notability. Although it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to promote programs, it is their responsibility to not intentionally exclude the only Online Midi Editor (and the only Midi Editor that supports microtonality) from an article that is supposed to provide a "Comparison of MIDI editors and sequencers". I don't think you will be violating WP's policies by posting a Keep here. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player has more notable references than the following 18 articles that are listed in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers: Aria_Maestosa, Deluxe_Music_Construction_Set, FreeWRL, GNMIDI_Professional, Guitar_Pro, Keykit, Master_Tracks_Pro, MIDI_Converter_Studio, Mixcraft, MuLab_(MuTools), MultitrackStudio, NoteWorthy_Composer, Zynewave_Podium, Qtractor, Rosegarden, Scala_(software), Seq24, Z-Maestro MySonLikesTrump (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of these do indeed have few sources in articles. I've checked about 2/3 - some have sources available elsewhere (like this article, it's all about the sources available anywhere), I've added a few. 1 shouldn't have been on the list, as a redlink - I've removed it. 3 I don't think met notability, I've PRODed 2, and sent 1 to AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidenced notability in its current form. While I've only skimmed the arguments above, it appears at least one editor is arguing that it is clear that the article's subject is a notable one, based on argument.  Unfortunately argument, even "common sense" arguments, are not the deciding factor in AfD debates...citations are.  If this article's subject is indeed notable from an objective standpoint there should be no problem with finding and providing secondary sources to demonstrate that.  If there are no such secondary sources, then this article's subject is not yet valid to be presented in Wikipedia's main namespace. -Markeer 14:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, the universities are going to love that Wikipedia editors don't consider Classical Archives (https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html) to be a "secondary source". MySonLikesTrump (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm uncertain if Classical Archives is an editorially curated website in terms of analysis of music or software, which would influence my opinion of it's validity as a source for notability. However, that's neither here nor there.  My comment above was based on sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Those guidelines specifically require multiple examples of non-trivial coverage in sourcing.  Classical Archives would only be one source even if considered an appropriate secondary source (which, as it happens, I strongly question) and even then fails on the "non-trivial" front.  The link to your tool at the bottom of a generic article on "What is a MIDI" is a minor afterthought, not the primary point of that article.  So...no valid sources. -Markeer 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia" rarely thinks anything, individual editors do (statement made in response to previous form of above comment). Indeed they can get to the same answer by different routes. Markeer doesn't feel it's a secondary source (or he didn't see it), I felt it was secondary, but didn't have sufficient coverage. In any case, as a piece of software it needs to meet WP:NPRODUCT which requires multiple suitable sources. For that matter, universities aren't really groupthinkers either, and I'm still unsure why we keep being threatened with their judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - To answer Nosebagbear's question why the judgment of universities matter: When universities see that an article for the only online midi editor that exists (which is also the only midi editor that supports microtonality) is being intentionally omitted from an article described as "Comparison of MIDI editors and sequencers" (and an article described as "Microtonal music"), even though it has an endorsement from "the largest classical music site in the world", they will question Wikipedia's relevance and veracity.

When universities see that WP editors mark an article for deletion without even looking at the article (Markeer said "lack of evidenced notability, no secondary sources"), they will certainly not advise their colleagues and students to waste their time creating useful and relevant articles for Wikipedia, when their time will be at the mercy of editors whose mentality and purpose (to receive more WP accolades) has been demonstrated by the text within this discussion. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

*Keep - I am a music professor at Vanderbilt University. I learned about the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player from the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article. To be frank, most of the other programs on that list are worthless junk. As stated in their article, the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player is the only online midi editor. I have used it, it is fantastic, so I will be recommending it to all my students.

I would not have learned about this program had it not appeared in the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article.

Why would you omit an article for the only program that is endorsed by Classical_Archives? Why would a Wikipedia editor vote to remove it without even looking at the article?

I also noticed that this is the only midi editor mentioned in the Microtonal_music article. Why would you omit it?

I reviewed some of the articles that were created by the Wikipedia editors that voted to remove the article in question. The articles they created do not have references that are nearly as strong as Classical_Archives.

I have contacted several prominent microtonal composers, so they can also follow this debate. If you remove the article in question from Microtonal_music and Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, your priorities are definitely in the wrong place. Stravinsky411 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC) --Comment added by a WP:sockpuppet of User:MySonLikesTrump.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

*Keep - I am a film composer. I am glad that I read about the ADSR Online Midi Editor in the Microtonal Music article, because I now use it every day. I am not the same person as Stravinsky411, we are in the library together this morning.

Their article fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for a new article (I read the rules).

What does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements is the arrogant attitude that the Wikipedia editors have expressed towards the person who is defending their article. What type of pompous *** would begin a comment with Ahem.? The same person also said "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do". If the other editors want to do something constructive, they should file a complaint against that editor.

I have donated money to Wikipedia for the past five years. If this important article is omitted, not only will my donations stop, but I will also inform the other members of my film composers' group of this injustice, and of the disgusting attitude that the Wikipedia editors have demonstrated in this discussion. To mark an article for deletion without even reading the article is disgraceful. IWonAnOscar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)   --Comment added by a WP:sockpuppet of User:MySonLikesTrump.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - all that stands between this article and ignominy are three advertisements thinly disguised as RSs. Searches reveal nothing better. Difficult to understand the apparent socking in the Vote!s and extreme verbosity unless someone is getting paid to keep this article alive. Heaven forfend that such a thing might be possible.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Stravinsky411 and IWonAnOscar, thank you for your support. Please let your colleagues know what goes on here. Did you know that your comments are "socking"? Velella's fancy icon must indicate that he has earned a lot of WP points for deleting articles without reading them. He referred to the endorsement at Classical_Archives as an advertisement, even though Classical_Archives has a strict policy of no advertisements. MySonLikesTrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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  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. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of Notability_(software) or general WP:GNG notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - 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 WP:GNG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.