Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music visualization techniques


 * 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. No sourced statements to merge into other articles.'''. Tan     39  00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Music visualization techniques

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nice example of original research. Not referenced, contains information that is best in own articles (which already exist). Written in a very un-encyclopaedic manner (almost essay-like) with a "summary" section at the end. Most worthy content already exists in one form or another, and should be easily referenced and merged if not. Booglama</b><b style="color:#003d60">y</b> ( talk ) - 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that I am responding correctly (by editing this page). If not, please let me know the correct procedure (click on Talk?). I am new at this.

First of all, and this may short-circuit the discussion... would it be appropriate to instead add one VERY SHORT sentence and link to the "Music visualization" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_visualization). The link would be to the same article on my subpage? If so, I will do that. In fact, this would be a very natural and effective way for interested people to find this information. If not...

Essay style... yes. But there are many long-existing wikipedia articles written that way. They may be flagged as such but they are not deleted. It took me about 10 seconds to find an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_visualization). Essay style is not necessarily a bad thing (even in an encyclopedia).

Is the information accurate, valuable, and pertinent? Yes. Is the article readable, clear, and easy to follow? Yes. Is it written in an "encyclopaedic" manner? I do not know. What constitutes "encyclopaedic?" It certainly is "Essay style."

Summary section... easily deleted and not important.

Finally, most of the information presented in this article does indeed exist in one form or another. However, it's virtually impossible to reference!!! Why? Because it exists in a myriad of software forums, programmer discussion groups, and web sites devoted to exchanging information of this type among software developers. And would wikipedia even consider a reference (link) to such things whose question/answer threads will likely disappear next year? wikipedia is, in my mind, an excellent and natural place to retain this type of information for others to find even though it may not be written in an encyclopaedic "style"... Keeping in mind that the information is accurate, valuable (to at least some), and easy to follow.

Again, however, a reference to this article on a user subpage would work almost as well.

Thanks for your time.

Joliviolinist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliviolinist (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Flow visualization also highlights the use of first- ("If we adjust the gain"...) and second-person pronouns ("when you listen to a song..") that should not be used. This article is heavily biased towards "Gloplug", and reads more like a "how to" guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO) than an encyclopaedia article.  Essay style is a bad thing if it's what's come straight out of your head.  <b style="color:#bdd8e7">B</b><b style="color:#9bc6de">o</b><b style="color:#74aecf">o</b><b style="color:#4d97c1">g</b><b style="color:#3485b3">l</b><b style="color:#1f6e9c">a</b><b style="color:#0b5a88">m</b><b style="color:#013d5f">a</b><b style="color:#003d60">y</b> ( talk ) - 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I think that the author could make some excellent contributions to articles such as Music visualization. The writing tips offered by the nominator are worth considering, such as avoiding the first person and second person" (translation: I, me, mine, you, your, we, us, our) ; think of "encyclopedic tone" is simply the format for making an article compatible with the Wikipedia system.  To the author, I shall say, "Your knowledge of writing is better than my knowledge of engineering".  It's a step in the right direction in trying to explain something that's quite technical. Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the author's ability to contribute affects whether this article stays. Yes, I agree that this editor could potentially contribute a lot of useful information to Wikipedia, but this article does not belong in an encyclopaedia.  As I said in my nomination, information that is not covered elsewhere (and qualifies for inclusion) should me merged in.  <b style="color:#bdd8e7">B</b><b style="color:#9bc6de">o</b><b style="color:#74aecf">o</b><b style="color:#4d97c1">g</b><b style="color:#3485b3">l</b><b style="color:#1f6e9c">a</b><b style="color:#0b5a88">m</b><b style="color:#013d5f">a</b><b style="color:#003d60">y</b> ( talk ) - 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * weak delete when you say "music visualization", I think, "Music notation". The article is actually about transforming audio information (music or otherwise) into entertaining patterns, not how to graphically represent music, as the lead section would claim.  The article as it stands is strongly an essay form, bordering on a HOWTO guide.  It appears to be pure WP:OR, though some of it is possibly sourceable.  It's possible an article could exist to represent this information, but I strongly doubt a decent article on the subject would retain any of what currently exists there. -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * merge All of the sourceable statements in this article probably belong in music visualization.  J kasd  04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak merge into music visualization. This article is not encyclopaedic, and can most likely be condensed into two or three sentences of verifiable content which do not themselves warrant an article.  It would be appropriate to re-create this page when a technique section of the aforementioned page is very large.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly useful, but unreferenced essay. Mukadderat (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into music visualization per Falcon Kirtaran. Obvious OR, no cites, POV fork. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing sourced in here so nothing that is appropriate to merge.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (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.