Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MilkyTracker (2nd 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   delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

MilkyTracker
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. This article was deleted by way of AFD before, and a DRV endorsed later endorsed that deletion. Time passed, and someone rewrote the article without bringing it up before deletion review first, which I find odd (db-repost?) -- in any event, I am not seeing the non-trivial coverage that we would require for this or any other software application, especially one that has been deleted by community consensus. JBsupreme ( talk ) 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep.When I wrote this article I did not know that there had previously been an article about Milkytracker on Wikipedia before. How does one find articles that have been deleted from Wikipedia? I do believe that this is notable software because it is the only AudioTracker for the PocketPC/WindowsMobile platform. Chipmusic, 8bit music etc. is a an emerging genre of electronic music, and at current, this is one of the premiere and most powerful programs for enabling this type of composition on various modern platforms. It has recently been included in many linux distributions. It is hard to think of any program of such significant capability for audio composition that will run on Windows, PocketPC, Mac OSX and Linux. I put the page up because there were dozens of links in other tracking articles referencing Milkytracker with no link. I have recreated some of the outside references, such as "Create Digital Music", I will add others as I find them. Obviously non-commercial software does not get the same kind of press that commercial and professionally promoted products do. Milkytracker has this in common with all open source software. Milkytracker is notable for several reasons: First it's the only tracking software for the PocketPC/Windows Mobile. Second, it's the most ported full fledged music creation application today. No other music creation application comes close to the software/platform support of Milkytracker. Third, it's the most accurate FastTracker experience one can experience outside of emulated environments without using legacy hardware. The demoscene/tracking scene may be underground, but it is legion. Milkytracker has been released, promoted, tested and used. It is actively developed and full featured. Youtube is filled with videos of songs and performances created with Milkytracker. It's a mature tracking environment with wide tracker community support. What is the benefit of removing useful information to penniless musicians from Wikipedia? I will be happy to make any suggested changes, I think it'd be a shame to delete an article referenced in so many others. Please give me some time and I will find more articles that reference it. Can someone tell me what kind of references Wikipedia is looking for? Every time I add a bunch of references they get deleted.DasKreestof (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have a particular problem with the new article being posted more than 2 years after the AFD, and it's clear that the author at least made an effort to add sources, a lack of sources being the reason for deletion in the first place. But the references offered here don't appear to do more than confirm that the software exists. Is there coverage in a reliable source that would show why this software is notable? I don't see it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. All references are primary sources. Pcap ping  09:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  09:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Create Digital Music appears to qualify as WP:RS, even if barely ; it was noted by other computing publications, like PC World and PC Magazine and non-computing ones like Boing Boing and Popular Science. Pcap ping  19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep .(repeated recommendation — Rankiri (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)) I have added additional academic paper references, and references from other magazines and sites. The references now total at 17. I read about Milkytracker first in a hard copy magazine, but I can't remember which one. This software is notable because it's the most widely ported music app, and no one here will be able to name another music application that has been ported to Windows, Linux, MacOS, PocketPC Amiga, and even sharp Zauros. In fact, I'll bet no one can name ANY app (not just music) that has been ported to so many platforms. It's true there aren't hundreds of articles in the Wall Street Journal about it, but that's true of all non-commercial software. It sets a bad precedent for wikipedia to deny coverage to anything that doesn't have significant commercial backing and press behind it, especially in an age where open source can become a source of liberation and innovation. This page has 17 references, a google search came back with 128,000 results; if you look at the page you'll see that it has a significant edit history (not including me) which means that it's clearly of interest to many individuals using wikipedia. It's also referenced in many other wikipedia articles. DasKreestof (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I zed zo, zo be it. 85.179.9.146 (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC) — 85.179.9.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I do not see significant, non-trivial coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not that sure that Create Digital Music can be considered a reliable source. A somewhat glorified blog is still a blog, and being included into one of "the Top 100 Blogs We Love" and "the Top 100 Undiscovered Sites" by PC Magazine is hardly a dependable way of establishing reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and journalistic integrity. — Rankiri (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have managed to find an online review of this software at Orju.net, a site that is "geared towards electronic and computer based musicians". This software is special interest and finding mainstream media coverage is very difficult, however the software is widely known and is indeed notable in the Demoscene and is a popular application for creating music in the XM (file format).  82.69.1.239 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2010 (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.