528:- 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. --
928:(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. --
494:- 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. -
642:- 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.
1015:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) policy. -
239:
73:: 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.
728:
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
950:
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
877:
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
892:
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
508:
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,
834:
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
211:
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
911:
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 Knowledge (XXG) for a longer time do not reference press articles. Here are some random examples:
957:
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. -
1010:
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
729:
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. --
180:
942:
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
1002:
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
246:
454:. 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.
141:
1067:
592:
566:
1044:. 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
406:
618:
174:
878:
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. --
767:- 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
50:
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.
53:(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.)
55:
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.
859:
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.
724:
certainly are. For users who want to learn about music notation software and compare it, an appropriate article is really helpful. I agree with
951:
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.
473:. 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.
783:
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.
255:
822:
755:
681:
554:
285:
1012:
1003:
836:
17:
840:
482:
447:
818:
799:
776:
271:
751:
550:
973:
1098:
36:
677:
658:
195:
716:- I don't see a reason why scorio should not be relevant for wikipedia, while other music notation programs such as
989:
848:
162:
114:
109:
244:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
118:
378:
317:
1097:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
775:. They have even less references or they are internal links of their own website. The critical articles from
391:, and ask you to hand over your mop. Maybe you can go find references to save it, if you like it so much! :)
428:
360:
101:
1045:
944:
787:
646:
386:
301:
275:
1078:
1053:
1020:
963:
898:
868:
629:
603:
577:
499:
260:
985:
844:
814:
795:
355:
I tend to agree with you, but it's a really interesting implementation, so I hate to !vote delete.... --
156:
747:
734:
1048:
or argue reasons for inclusion that have nothing to do with
Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion criteria. -
780:
673:
654:
78:
60:
370:
810:
791:
478:
188:
152:
743:
730:
424:
356:
307:
238:
105:
1082:
1057:
1024:
993:
967:
937:
902:
887:
872:
852:
803:
738:
706:
669:
662:
650:
633:
607:
581:
537:
518:
503:
486:
463:
432:
418:
400:
364:
229:
82:
64:
1074:
1049:
1016:
959:
933:
894:
883:
864:
717:
702:
625:
599:
573:
546:
533:
495:
459:
202:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1007:
514:
414:
396:
225:
97:
89:
1041:
954:
860:
693:
per Drmies' findings — this doesn't have any significant coverage from reliable sources. "
451:
448:
http://www.delamar.de/pressemitteilung/scorio-kostenloser-musiknoteneditor-musiknoten-8843/
382:
374:
217:
213:
74:
56:
725:
694:
835:
doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline on notability for software, merely two essays (
474:
48:. Part of the argument to keep is based on the idea that Delamar is a reliable source.
695:
If a topic has no reliable sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it
168:
929:
879:
698:
542:
529:
455:
335:
323:
291:
135:
270:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
977:
913:
772:
510:
410:
392:
221:
423:
I've noticed that in the past, yes, which is why I didn't !vote to keep. :-) --
947:. It details why this is not a winning argument against deletion around here.
925:
921:
981:
893:
guideline under which it definitely falls, then it fails notability IMHO. -
220:. Article had been deleted but was restored; a wider discussion is in order.
768:
721:
917:
1091:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
233:
446:
It is not clear to me, why the review of scorio at delamar (
264:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
369:
Weeeeell Sarek, that looks like a pretty clear-cut case of
254:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
131:
127:
123:
998:
From the first line of the article: "scorio ... is an
187:
201:
924:(since 2005) and surprisingly also the well-known
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1101:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1068:list of Software-related deletion discussions
593:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
284:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
567:list of Germany-related deletion discussions
1062:
982:http://www.scorio.com/web/scorio/new-score
619:list of Music-related deletion discussions
613:
587:
561:
258:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1066:: This debate has been included in the
617:: This debate has been included in the
591:: This debate has been included in the
565:: This debate has been included in the
278:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
405:I'm sorry Sarek, but there seems to be
1013:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (software)
1004:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (software)
837:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (software)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
841:Knowledge (XXG):Software notability
24:
974:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)
237:
1:
373:. I'm going to throw in some
274:on the part of others and to
216:, nor do I see how it passes
1083:17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1058:16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1025:02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
994:01:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
968:20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
938:13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
903:17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
888:16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
873:16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
853:14:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
804:10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
739:09:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
707:07:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
663:21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
634:22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
608:22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
582:22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
538:15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
519:01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
504:22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
487:21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
464:14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
433:19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
419:18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
401:18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
365:18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
230:18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
83:03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
65:02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
1118:
1006:, an essay, and the core
1094:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
972:I don't understand why
316:; accounts blocked for
286:single-purpose accounts
256:policies and guidelines
976:should apply – it's a
823:few or no other edits
756:few or no other edits
682:few or no other edits
555:few or no other edits
825:outside this topic.
758:outside this topic.
684:outside this topic.
557:outside this topic.
781:classicalquitarblog
268:by counting votes.
247:not a majority vote
44:The result was
1085:
1071:
826:
807:
790:comment added by
759:
685:
666:
649:comment added by
636:
622:
610:
596:
584:
570:
558:
390:
349:
348:
345:
272:assume good faith
54:
1109:
1096:
1072:
1000:online community
986:Michael Bednarek
845:Michael Bednarek
808:
806:
784:
741:
667:
665:
643:
623:
597:
571:
540:
450:) does not pass
389:
343:
331:
315:
299:
280:
250:, but instead a
241:
234:
206:
205:
191:
139:
121:
52:
34:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1099:deletion review
1092:
785:
644:
333:
321:
305:
289:
276:sign your posts
148:
112:
96:
93:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1115:
1113:
1104:
1103:
1087:
1086:
1060:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
952:
948:
920:(since 2007),
916:(since 2005),
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
856:
855:
828:
827:
761:
760:
710:
709:
687:
686:
637:
611:
585:
559:
523:
522:
521:
489:
467:
466:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
407:nothing at all
347:
346:
242:
209:
208:
145:
92:
87:
86:
85:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1114:
1102:
1100:
1095:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1043:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
956:
953:
949:
946:
945:WP:OTHERSTUFF
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
910:
904:
900:
896:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
857:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
833:
830:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
711:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
689:
688:
683:
679:
675:
671:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
641:
638:
635:
631:
627:
620:
616:
612:
609:
605:
601:
594:
590:
586:
583:
579:
575:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
434:
430:
426:
425:SarekOfVulcan
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
388:
387:WP:CONSPIRACY
384:
380:
379:WP:AdminAbuse
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
357:SarekOfVulcan
354:
351:
350:
341:
337:
329:
325:
319:
313:
309:
303:
297:
293:
287:
283:
279:
277:
273:
267:
263:
262:
257:
253:
249:
248:
243:
240:
236:
235:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
91:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
69:
68:
67:
66:
62:
58:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1093:
1090:
1075:TexasAndroid
1063:
1050:TexasAndroid
1037:
1017:TexasAndroid
999:
960:TexasAndroid
895:TexasAndroid
865:TexasAndroid
831:
786:— Preceding
764:
713:
690:
645:— Preceding
639:
626:TexasAndroid
614:
600:TexasAndroid
588:
574:TexasAndroid
562:
525:
496:TexasAndroid
491:
470:
443:
352:
339:
327:
318:sockpuppetry
311:
300:; suspected
295:
281:
269:
265:
259:
251:
245:
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
70:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
978:scorewriter
914:Music_Write
821:) has made
773:Scorewriter
754:) has made
680:) has made
553:) has made
175:free images
926:Rosegarden
922:SmartScore
385:, all per
371:WP:ILIKEIT
252:discussion
75:Beeblebrox
57:Beeblebrox
769:MuseScore
475:Roscelese
308:canvassed
302:canvassed
261:consensus
1040:- Fails
819:contribs
811:Auwetter
800:contribs
792:Auwetter
788:unsigned
752:contribs
722:Lilypond
678:contribs
659:contribs
647:unsigned
551:contribs
483:contribs
340:username
334:{{subst:
328:username
322:{{subst:
312:username
306:{{subst:
296:username
290:{{subst:
142:View log
71:Addendum
1008:WP:NOTE
930:Scorgle
918:MusEdit
880:Scorgle
777:Delamar
744:Ornello
731:Ornello
699:Nyttend
543:Scorgle
530:Scorgle
492:Comment
456:Scorgle
444:Comment
353:Comment
304:users:
181:WP refs
169:scholar
115:protect
110:history
1042:WP:WEB
1038:Delete
984:). --
955:WP:WEB
861:WP:WEB
843:). --
718:Finale
691:Delete
511:Drmies
471:Delete
452:WP:WEB
411:Drmies
393:Drmies
383:WP:POV
381:, and
375:WP:COI
222:Drmies
218:WP:WEB
214:WP:GNG
153:Google
119:delete
98:Scorio
90:Scorio
46:delete
980:(see
726:WP:RS
670:Jofeu
651:Jofeu
282:Note:
196:JSTOR
157:books
136:views
128:watch
124:links
16:<
1079:talk
1064:Note
1054:talk
1021:talk
990:talk
964:talk
934:talk
899:talk
884:talk
869:talk
863:. -
849:talk
839:and
832:Keep
815:talk
796:talk
765:Keep
748:talk
735:talk
714:Keep
703:talk
697:."
674:talk
655:talk
640:Keep
630:talk
615:Note
604:talk
589:Note
578:talk
563:Note
547:talk
534:talk
526:Keep
515:talk
500:talk
479:talk
460:talk
429:talk
415:talk
397:talk
361:talk
226:talk
189:FENS
163:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
79:talk
61:talk
1073:--
779:or
771:or
720:or
624:--
598:--
572:--
336:csp
332:or
324:csm
292:spa
266:not
203:TWL
140:– (
1081:)
1070:.
1056:)
1023:)
992:)
966:)
936:)
901:)
886:)
871:)
851:)
817:•
809:—
802:)
798:•
750:•
742:—
737:)
705:)
676:•
668:—
661:)
657:•
632:)
621:.
606:)
595:.
580:)
569:.
549:•
541:—
536:)
517:)
502:)
485:)
481:⋅
462:)
431:)
417:)
409:.
399:)
377:,
363:)
342:}}
330:}}
320::
314:}}
298:}}
288::
228:)
183:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
81:)
63:)
1077:(
1052:(
1019:(
988:(
962:(
932:(
897:(
882:(
867:(
847:(
813:(
794:(
746:(
733:(
701:(
672:(
653:(
628:(
602:(
576:(
545:(
532:(
513:(
498:(
477:(
458:(
427:(
413:(
395:(
359:(
344:.
338:|
326:|
310:|
294:|
224:(
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
77:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.