Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choral Public Domain Library (second nomination)


 * 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 keep, single purpose accounts noted. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Choral Public Domain Library
This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result, given low participation at the first AfD, and in light of new evidence. Please consult the DRV for evidence of notability before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve The article is rather lacking in references and content, I must admit. But it does appear to have credentials, and it's a website providing a valuable service. What we really need is more references. LinaMishima 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many wikipedia articles link to an individual composer's entry in the CPDL. If this page were to be removed, we just end up with many red wiki links until somebody inevitably starts the page off again. So Keep. Nunquam Dormio 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This fails WP:WEB, and, well, we can always remove the redlinks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I poked my head in again, and I'm still not seeing any non-trivial press coverage, awards, or hosting with a notable host. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have slightly expanded the article. I disagree about WP:WEB, but find it dificult to assert notability in the article without increasing 'vanity' quotient. CPDL has appeared prominently in the Choral Journal (ACDA), Computing in Musicology (CCARH), and a MusicNetwork workshop. over 10,000 choral musicians use it every day. It is an interwiki-linked site (ChoralWiki). It appears to be the most used choral website (according to Alexa). Any hints on improving the article? I'm not very experienced with WIkipedia articles ... Ornes 19:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  user has less than 50 edits. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 
 *  wow, you're right! Only 38, I definitely need to log in more often, I have far more than that .... ;) (Ornes) 67.180.254.70 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * Keep or delete all free sheet music archive articles and change the template. I am of the opinion that a free resource which has helped so many people make music and is accessed by people across the globe deserves a place in this encyclopedia. ChoralWiki is more popular than any other free sheet music archive so if you're gonna delete this page, you'll have to delete the rest (Mutopia, Free Sheet Music Archive, etc) as well. Bobnotts 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  user has less than 50 edits. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * Keep I have today contributed a bit to the article and will try to make more improvements to it.  Not only does practically every choral director use CDPL as a resource, many many universities and professional choral groups reference CPDL as a source of choral music.  Chuck 23:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Request you say universities use this - it would probably be very helpful to find a recommendation on a university website as this being a good resource. LinaMishima 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to Request I note that the site is officially endorsed by a link on official sites (maintained as a university, not merely a page of a student) of the Northern Illinois University School of Music (cf.: ), and Kent State University (cf.: ); I submit that the inclusion of these links on official sites meets the criterion 1, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", specifically under the sub-point "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms,...". I vote to Overturn the deletion.  ÞorsHammer 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  user ChuckHG has less than 50 edits. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * Keep I have today contributed over 150 free vocal scores to it.  A major University will be using one of my scores to perform a Baroque Opera this fall. I have emails from Choral directors in remote places, such as South Africa praising CPDL's contributions. It is certainly worth pointing out this resource to Wikipedia readers.  It should also be noted that CPDL has a better claim to being listed than does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClassicalArchives which is a commercial siteUser:johnhenryfowler2 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  user's only edits are to this AFD and has no talk page as of yet. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * Keep and expand In principle, Choral Public Domain Library is the equivalent of Project Gutenberg in the domain of vocal music. It thus has an extremely large potential range, from sung texts dating before 1,000 C.E. in the collection, through the predominantly vocal music of the late mediæval period and Renaissance, up to works offered as public domain and composed in the 20th and 21st centuries. So basic is the voice to musical expression that virtually every notable composer has provided works capable of representation on the site, and the vast majority of music composed before 1700 would be suitable for eventual inclusion, provided copyright issues (similar to PG) are met. Moreover the site clearly invites contributions from volunteers (again, I myself am a contributor of CPDL editions) to improve its comprehensiveness in all vocal genres (although there is a historical bias towards sacred music), with a long term aim of complete editions of major composers as would be found in university or public library reserve collections. I disagree with Man in Black, CPDL certainly meets the foremost criteria for WP:WEB, however the article as it stands is a stub and would benefit from major expansion. Other articles concerning similar public domain resources should provide a model for this. Philip Legge @ 01:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  user has less than 50 edits and no talk page as of yet. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 
 *  Correct. However a number of my edits were done as an unregistered IP address - other edits from my home ISP's modem server are not so easily traceable owing to random IP allocation; and besides most of my energies are directed towards producing new editions of music for public domain use, rather than editing web pages! Is your point that only those who actually edit pages have an interest in Wikipedia's content? Philip Legge @ 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * Keep This is a collection which the founders and Wikipedia can be proud of. The article is developing nicely, and day by day its content is expanded. It is the most important resource of choral music and it would be a shame if it had to be moved to another place on the web as it is a vast work of hundreds of contributors. However, I agree that content could be improved, but the site has developed so much since it became ChoralWiki that we can see the goal it aims at. So again: Keep   Jay_m 8:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  user has less than 50 edits and no talk page as of yet. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 
 *  Yes, but does it matter? How many edits should I have to have an opinion? Jay_m 8:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * Keep Can't see why should be removed. If the rules say it should be removed, change the rules so it can be kept. (You can even deeplink to it with a [:ChoralWiki] prefix!) - Bemoeial 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete it passed deletion before and there is evidence of massive sock puppetry in this second AFD. Anomo 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The links pages of NIU and KSU predate the date of the rfd discussion, and should have been taken to account in that discussion. That they were not is incontrovertible evidence that the vote to delete was in error because of insufficient research on the part of those voting for deletion.  The sites which list CPDL also list Werner Icking Music Archive, which also has a page, but which has not been nominated for deletion.  How does one delete one, but not the other? ÞorsHammer 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interested parties not sockpuppets. As I stated above, I am a contributor to CPDL and an infrequent occasional contributor to Wikipedia, however I use both sites regularly as an "end-user". Wikipedia is the best site of its kind (free encyclopedia), and CPDL is the best site of its kind (free vocal music). The site may not be unique (other sites offer free sheet music) but it is certainly one of the most notable. Philip Legge @ 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see the point of those who support deletion. Is there a pressure from the direction of music publishers? Does CPDL hurt anyone?Jay_m 9:00, 16 August 2006 (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.