Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Music Score Library Project

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. John254 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Music Score Library Project

edit

Speedied once as not asserting notability, now has a long list of universities that suggest it as a resource, but still no actual assertion of notability in the form of non-trivial third-party coverage. It's a small wiki, smaller than CPDL / ChoralWiki. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the stub-like entry before was speedied because not enough effort was made to provide enough information on the notability of the wiki. Also, while it is smaller than CPDL, it is on the same order of magnitude: while CPDL has ~8500 scores, IMSLP has ~5000, so the difference is really not great. Also, to the best of my knowledge (and I do know a lot of music score archival sites), IMSLP has currently the third largest music score collection on the entire internet (soon to be second considering the speed of expansion), right behind CPDL (~8500) and free-scores.com (~5400). I welcome you to prove me wrong :)

Also, MIT has not only given coverage in the form of the blog entry, but have said that MIT profs have been using IMSLP extensively for quite a while [1] (see second to last post). It is also featured rather prominently on MIT's Lewis Music Library's front page [2]. Note that the link to IMSLP is the _only_ external link on that page. --Feldmahler 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been demonstrated. The list of universities is sufficient. They are 3rd parties independent of the project. It's exactly analogous to the way in which widely used textbooks demonstrate the notability of the author. Furthermore, an official university blog, like a university web site, is a RS. DGG 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it? Where are the non-trivial independent sources, then? Guy (Help!) 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't his entire post about the non-trivial independent sources? --Feldmahler 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. same reasons as above, plus supported with: the frequently used links to IMSLP on classical music wikipedia pages, the hot debate on the french wikipedia entry, and the of existence the article in six other languages. And if Mutopia project is notable enough, then IMSLP certainly is.--Dr. Friendly 12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Edison 15:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG. Also: IMSLP has begun collaboration with CPDL through interwiki links (CPDL forum and IMSLP forum), indicating that CPDL sees some notability in IMSLP. (I am a contributor to IMSLP). --Emeraldimp 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Funper 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Johnbod 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kongming819 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment here, folks - please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:JUSTAVOTE. The fact of its colaborating with CPDL/ChoralWiki does not actually influence its notability per our notability guideline. Please please add some independent sources about the project, not just a list of backlinks. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of multiple independent non trivial sources, unless links are somehow classed as sources..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: It might be a good idea to read the old AfD debate about CPDL, because we seem to be going over more or less the same ground... for one thing the setup of IMSLP is extremely similar to CPDL, with the exception that IMSLP has a larger scope. Also, the CPDL article itself and the Mutopia article may help, since they are deemed notable. --Feldmahler 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I don't see what relevance that AfD has. This article requires multiple independent non trivial sources, and I don't see any at present. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the comments made by "Men in Black". You are more or less shadowing his arguments. --Feldmahler 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean the arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are the counterarguments. I think the problem here is the definition of "non-trivial". That old AfD gave university links as proof. This is why I suggested it as a precedent. There is a reason why the law system gives high importance to precedents; language by itself is almost always unclear. --Feldmahler 21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I suggest a good starting point for non trivial would be somewhere a long way above a link on a page personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also to minimize inconsistencies within the system due to differing subjective judgments that the law gives such importance to precedents. Also, that the links on the IMSLP site are not just some random link that you make it sound like; they are from university libraries. --Feldmahler 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but precedent and consensus says that a link on a page is not an independent non trivial source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you have read that old AfD closely enough... and you keep using "links". How about using the more detailed description "university approved links"? --Feldmahler 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read the AfD, and I'm afraid anything said there is trumped by policy, namely WP:A which states if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, so perhaps you'd like to provide the sources? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Importance more than established, plenty of third party material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeff and DGG. — $PЯINGrαgђ 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.