Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MICM Music Dataset


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

MICM Music Dataset

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable dataset. The article is based entirely on the author's own publication and lacks any other independent expert sources that cover this specific dataset in sufficient detail (refs #2-3 are not about MICM and their usage for a "comparison" is original research and synthesis per WP:SYNTH). A search for other secondary expert sources revealed no coverage at all. GermanJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - see also Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset for a similar article with closely-related arguments. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As anyone can see on Google scholar, Researchgate, Arxiv, and other scientific sources, This dataset is a notable dataset and accepted as an standard in one conference and one ISI journal. Also the dataset is downloadable for free to see weather it is fake or not. In any conference and such a journal, also in arxiv there is a judgment process which indicates weather a publication and a dataset is notable or not. this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations. If this article will be removed from Wikipedia it would be less opportunity to the research society to use this unique dataset. Also the Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset that was in Wikipedia for more than 9 months was nominated to be deleted that makes me wonder how it could be possible that such an article after 9 months of existence in Wikipedia nominated for deleting. Both of datasets just by one person(GermanJoe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabemalek (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguments like this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This kind of promotional showcasing to raise the topic's citation count is prohibited on Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If a dataset has no Wikipedia page it would be very difficult for research community to find and refer to it.Sabemalek (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - that's irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't exist to raise the profile of certain articles in the research community. We are a tertiary source and depend on sources to demonstrate the reliability of what is included. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Conferences and journals decide what papers to accept based on their usefulness and interest to the research community.  We decide what articles to accept based on the existence of independent, reliable, secondary sources.  I'm not seeing any of those, so delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 17 January 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.