Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosaic notation program (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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mosaic notation program
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article cites no sources beyond the product and company's webpages, and I can't find anything that would satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Half of this permastub is unfounded speculation. Reyk YO!  06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment According to the article, Mosaic is further development of Professional Composer. There are reviews of Professional Composer from the mid to late 80s (eg. in MacWorld magazine). Mosaic (or Composer's Mosaic) seems to be early 90s release ( short news advert about Mosaic 1.0 in December 1992 MacWorld). This explains lack of easy to find online sources (too common name doesn´t help in this regard). I will try to improve the article... Pavlor (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just ended the first part of the article rewrite (about Professional Composer). Best source I used is big review in February 1986 issue of Macworld magazine, but I´m sure similar reviews could be found in other Mac magazines too. My preliminar search shows at least two reviews for early version of Mosaic (Keyboard magazine, February 1993 p. 146; MacUser magazine (Gruberman, Ken), volume 8, number 10 (October 1992), p. ( 83-84 85), but these aren´t available online and I´m not able to get them. There are also mentions or short paragraphs about Mosaic in books devoted to Mac and computer music in general (at least in Google books preview). Pavlor (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another two reviews:
 * Mark of the Unicorn's Composer's Mosaic (Mac). Electronic Musician, January 1993. (only database entry, not direct citation)
 * So... there are at least 4 reviews of Mosaic in published media, one of them in (probably?) peer reviewed academic journal. Should be enough to demonstrate notability. However, I don´t have access to these, so my rewrite of the article must rely on previews and other lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So... there are at least 4 reviews of Mosaic in published media, one of them in (probably?) peer reviewed academic journal. Should be enough to demonstrate notability. However, I don´t have access to these, so my rewrite of the article must rely on previews and other lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources (albeit hard to find...). Pavlor (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Article rewrite done. There is not much to add now (well, native speaker should correct my Czenglish... if the article is kept of course). Pavlor (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an abandoned product but it looks like it was notable in its day. In addition to the sources that the article currently has, I found this review in an academic journal from 1993 and a comment about the program for the DMCA anti-circumvention exemption process in 2006 (see Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This tells me that this is a sufficiently important and well-documented part of music notation software history that we should keep the article. The article should probably be renamed to Composer's Mosaic to fit WP:CRITERIA better. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2017 (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.