Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Online Digital Musical Document Libraries

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Online Digital Musical Document Libraries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Linkfarm. The so called references are just the same links again. No independent sourcing. No sign of any notability for Online Digital Musical Document Libraries let alone for this list. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Viability_of_lists "...If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is also true; if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable." Blue Riband► 03:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs cleanup to look more like List of online music databases probably--not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngreen2001 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This smacks of a link-farm --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so far from being a link farm, I think there would be little difficulty in establishing the topic as notable and all of these are appropriate major resources, for many of which individual notability could probably be shown also. We have lately been very inclusive about bibliographies and similar lists, and this is one of them. I suppose if necessary it can be moved into WP space as a resource for writing articles, though not all of these have free access. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no "one comprehensive archive" for digitized music resources. In line with WP's reflection on what attitudes drive people away, perhaps rather than nomination for deletion, suggestions should be made to improve the list. I can see a few more columns providing status of free or paywall, as well as scope and number of scores. -- kosboot (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of online music databases because they both cover essentially the same topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merge. I believe this should be kept (and cleaned up) as a separate article. Archives of music scores (which seems to be the implied definition of "document" in this case) and music audio archives/databases are very different. Some of the sources may fall into both categories (like IMSLP) but only a few of them. Ngreen2001 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what makes music scores different from any other music? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One is music audio and one is graphical or data representation. (It's like the difference between an MP3 and a PDF.) It's that simple. Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still music, just in a different format. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's important to recognize that an encyclopaedia before anything is an academic resource. Having such a list could be a valuable addition if cleaned up and de-farmed. Mkdw ^talk 04:25, 12 December 2012 (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.