Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorio


 * 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. Part of the argument to keep is based on the idea that Delamar is a reliable source. Whether it is or not is ultimately not relevant because the coverage is extremely trivial, three sentences that explain what Scorio is and nothing more. (there was an ad after those three sentences, it made it appear the article was over when it was not, which I noticed when I went to close the window.) The other arguments are based on users liking this product and touting its usefulness, which are not valid, policy based reasons to keep an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: As you can see I have had to strike through part of that rationale as I soon discovered I made an error. After reviewing the matter further I have decided to uphold the decision to delete as it is still but one source, and that is a review in a specialized publication. It probably is a reliable source, but this one mention is not sufficient to establish general notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Scorio

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've looked through all the references (the German wiki has the same links) and did not find a single one that passes our guidelines for reliable sources--they're all blogs, online portals, communities, etc. Barring other evidence, I have to say that this article does not pass WP:GNG, nor do I see how it passes WP:WEB. Article had been deleted but was restored; a wider discussion is in order. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I tend to agree with you, but it's a really interesting implementation, so I hate to !vote delete.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weeeeell Sarek, that looks like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:ILIKEIT. I'm going to throw in some WP:COI, WP:AdminAbuse, and WP:POV, all per WP:CONSPIRACY [I didn't know that existed--I'll read it after I'm done ranting], and ask you to hand over your mop. Maybe you can go find references to save it, if you like it so much! :) Drmies (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Sarek, but there seems to be nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that in the past, yes, which is why I didn't !vote to keep. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not clear to me, why the review of scorio at delamar (http://www.delamar.de/pressemitteilung/scorio-kostenloser-musiknoteneditor-musiknoten-8843/) does not pass WP:WEB. It is independent of scorio.com and written by a delamar editor in a rather critical way. delamar is not just another blog, but a respectable news site about the music business. Scorgle (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm glad this has been brought to my notice, because my old copy of Finale is acting up, but unfortunately it does not appear to be notable. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just a side note on this. As can be seen at the (currently) bottom section on my talk page, I originally A7 CSDed this.  The author protested, and created enough smoke that I was no longer certain that it qualified for A7 CSD.  Enough hints of possible notability to make me second guess myself.  And if I'm second guessing myself, then it likely should not be A7 deleted any more.  So I restored it, with the intention of, when I had more time, doing a more thorough check of the references in order to decide whether or not to bring it to AFD.  I did not get around to that check, but here it is anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I beat you to it. I did see the discussion on your talk page--just to make things clear, I have no problem with it having been reinstated. An AfD discussion may bring in more editors who might help establish notability, and that's fine with me, though I don't see it happening yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the delamar review seems independent and critical enough to me to be considered a valid source, my main point for keeping the scorio entry is that scorio is a free low tech online service which is useful to people who want to discover music notation, but don't have financial or technical resources to buy and install even Capella or PriMus. They might only have access to a community computer (e.g. in a library) or they might not understand computers enough to install software. There are many musically interested people around who are neither technophile nor wealthy. A wikipedia entry about scorio would increase the chance that they can further develop their interest in writing music in spite of having access to little resources. -- Scorgle (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Scorgle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This scorio web site is the first one to offer a comprehensive scorewriter that is fully based on HTML-technologies (no Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX). As such it is the first of its kind and a true and still unique innovation (historical achievement). This makes this website notable in my eyes. And by the way: I do not understand why Delamar (even when you might not like their point of view) does not count as an independent and reliable source. Delamar is legend and Delamar tutorials are a source that's widely respected among German speaking musicians. I vote to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofeu (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)  — Jofeu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per Drmies' findings — this doesn't have any significant coverage from reliable sources. "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Nyttend (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see a reason why scorio should not be relevant for wikipedia, while other music notation programs such as Finale or Lilypond certainly are. For users who want to learn about music notation software and compare it, an appropriate article is really helpful. I agree with WP:RS that the number of reliable sources is limited, but this is not very surprising to me as the scorio web site seems to have started only a few months ago, compared to Finale (more than 20 years!). Furthermore as stated above scorio seems to be more than "yet another music scorewriter" as it integrates score writing and sharing within a web community. In conclusion I would favor to keep the article and reopen an AfD discussion within a few months in case the number of reliable sources does not increase. -- Ornello (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Ornello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - I totally agree with Ornello. Look for axample at those notation software and competitors of scorio which still have a page in wikipedia like for example MuseScore or Scorewriter. They have even less references or they are internal links of their own website. The critical articles from Delamar or classicalquitarblog give much more details and insights about this new notation software and really help people to decide wether they want to use scorio or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auwetter (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)  — Auwetter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep because of the Delamar review, inclusion in the MusicXML list, wide-spread coverage in the circles of music notation enthusiasts and because of the program's radically different approach. Music notation is a very specialised field which doesn't get much coverage in the general press. Aside: there doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline on notability for software, merely two essays (Notability (software) and Software notability). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is much more about the web site/community than about the software. And we more definitely have a guideline on inclusion of web pages.  WP:WEB. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One point in having an online scorewriter is that scores can be shared within a community and accessed from everywhere. It is part of the concept of scorio, that the scorewriter and the online community are intertwined. The Delamar review refers to the community aspect, but also discusses the editor software (for example how to enter music). It should not be held against scorio that it does not fall properly in one of the categories software or website. -- Scorgle (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that, you have something that falls into two categories. One of those those categories has an official guideline.  And the thing (IMHO) fails that guideline.  At that point, the fact that the other category only has an essay doesn't matter as much.  If something fails a specific notability guideline under which it definitely falls, then it fails notability IMHO.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael Bednarek's point that there is no wide-spread coverage of music notation in the press is supported by the fact that quite a few notation programs that have been in Wikipedia for a longer time do not reference press articles. Here are some random examples: Music_Write (since 2005), MusEdit (since 2007), SmartScore (since 2005) and surprisingly also the well-known Rosegarden (since 2007). In my opinion, the reason for this lack of coverage is that music notation software is targeted to active musicians who do not only listen to music or play it, but also are interested in arranging or composing music. This group is relatively small and therefore not interesting for the main stream music media. Concerning the question whether to keep or delete the scorio entry, I would suggest that an administrator specialized in music topics reviews the discussion and comes to an informed compromise, considering the formal requirements of the appropriate guidelines as well as the pecularities of music notation as an exotic topic. -- Scorgle (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are doing exactly what I commented about in my "Delete" !vote below. Examples of other articles that may or may not be similar to this article really do not mean much in these debates.  Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF.  It details why this is not a winning argument against deletion around here.
 * As for your other arguments, I'm sorry, but these debates are judged by whether or not the article meets existing policies. That's policies as they now stand, not how you think they should stand.  If you want to change notability policy, there are ways to attempt to do such.  But it's not a winning argument to say that you think it should not be deleted because it meets what you think the policy *should* say, instead of what it *does* say.
 * WP:WEB gives specific criteria for article inclusion on web sites. The article IMHO does not meet those criteria.  It also does not meet the general notability criteria.  So IMHO it should be deleted.  It's as simple as that.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why Notability (web) should apply – it's a scorewriter (see http://www.scorio.com/web/scorio/new-score). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From the first line of the article: "scorio ... is an online community for musicians to write, publish and find sheet music on the web." That's why WP:WEB applies.  The article is about the website as much as the software.  But even if it does not that leaves Notability (software), an essay, and the core WP:NOTE criteria.  Scorio fails both these as well, because it still has, at most, one independent review, and both require multiple.  I focused on WP:WEB because it's a Guideline, and so has more community support than Notability (software).  But whichever criteria you look at, IMHO scorio fails them.  Ultimately, I will not be judging this debate, it'll be a previously uninvolved admin.  But I was wanting to explain to you ahead of time why, as I see it, this is likely to be deleted.  1) scorio fails any of the three sets of notability criteria that could be used to evaluate it, and 2) none of the Keep arguments are IMHO based in Wikipedia policy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:WEB. At best we have one independent review.  WP:WEB criteria 1 requires "multiple".  And 1 is not "multiple".  The arguments from the SPA parade above all are either WP:OTHERSTUFF or argue reasons for inclusion that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (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.