Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuseData

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 redirect to List of online digital musical document libraries. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MuseData

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This has been in CAT:NN for eleven and a half years. Hopefully we can now resolve it and reduce some of the crazy backlog on such an important topic.

This exists. It has some basic mentions, but I couldn't find anything to establish it goes over the bar of WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV—most of the hits on Google Scholar were patent filings/other primary sources. But I feel like there must be something like Computing in music or Digital encoding of music that we could selectively merge it to? Just don't know what that is. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark viking. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of online digital musical document libraries, where the database has an entry. This topic is both a digital music format and a database, and the database is arguably the more relevant thing these days, as the ASCII-based repository is particularly suitable as a corpus for machine learning research. There is secondary sourcing that verifies the topic's importance, but there are not enough in-depth sources to satisfy GNG. Boleyn, you could have discovered this alternative to deletion yourself with a two-minute WP:BEFORE search. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:24, 23 August 2020 (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.