The result was delete. Despite considerable volume from one editor (even without considering apparent socks), the discussion was very lopsided in indicating that there is not sufficient evidence of notability for this subject. RL0919 ( talk) 05:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
No indication of notability for this software. ... discospinster talk 01:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
For the following reasons, this article is notable and therefore should not be removed:
1. The ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player article describes the only online program that provides the features that are described in this article.
2. There is no other program (online or otherwise) that provides the ability to create a midi file that can play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.
3. The microtonal community (i.e. virtually all 21st century composers) will be missing out if they are not made aware of this free online program.
I thank you for keeping this worthwhile article in Wikipedia.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 01:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The person who deleted this article apparently deletes many, many articles without spending any time to review the notability of the articles that they are deleting.
As an example, in the Microtonal_music article, under the section of "Creating microtonal music", they deleted the text which described how to create microtonal music, so the section made no sense after their edit.
On 7/30/19, after I created the "Creating microtonal music" section in the Microtonal_music article, I received messages at my website from four college professors who thanked me for creating the only tool which allows them and their students to play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.
The person who deleted this article, and incorrectly edited the section in the Microtonal_music article, is causing damage to Wikipedia's reputation.
I sincerely hope that a high-level administrator takes a good look at the full history of the person who deleted this article.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player program was mentioned in the Microtonal_music article (with a favorable personal response from four college professors) two weeks before the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article was created. That in itself proves that the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article is relevant and notable to the Microtonal community.
The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article (which is being considered for deletion) contains citations from 3 reputable websites:
https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API
Take a look at Discospinster's talk section. It would seem to be very difficult for them to truly judge each article's notability, considering the huge quantity of articles that they are deleting.
Again, why would someone delete text which describes how to create microtonal music, in a section entitled "Creating microtonal music" (see the Microtonal_music article).
Thank you again for your reply.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 02:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: MySonLikesTrump, I understand your reasoning behind wanting to keep this article, but please realize that "notable" has a relatively narrow definition on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability requirements are unrelated to any of your three points. From WP:N: To be notable under the general notability guideline, a subject has to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Has this piece of software been covered in reliable independent news or other sources? I don't see any on Google, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. K.Koopa ( talk) 02:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand how your rule would normally apply when deciding if an article should be accepted about a person. However, 90% of the products listed in the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article have NOT "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For that reason, and the reasons that I previously described, this case certainly deserves an exception.
I really don't want to inform the heads of all the music departments that use MidiPro.org that Wikipedia refused to accept an article that describes something that they have already deemed to be incredibly important to their professors and students, just because Wikipedia feels it has not yet received "significant coverage".
Again, I understand why you have to deny articles that have little notability or relevance. However, that is not the case here.
Please consider all these issues when making your decision. Thank you again for your consideration.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Four music professors who learned about this product from the Microtonal_music article contacted me through MidiPro.org, to inform me that they are recommending this program to their students. If this article is removed, other music scholars will not be made aware of this program that greatly increases the usage of microtonal music. That makes this article deserving of a unique exception, even though it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources". MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 18:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Regarding your concern "Without reliable sources we have no way of making sure that what visiting readers see actually is a reliable impression": If MidiPro.org is malicious then people will complain, and then you blacklist MidiPro.org.
Of the 50 programs listed at Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, very few have "reliable sources". Except for MidiPro.org, every program on that list has to be downloaded at the user's risk. MidiPro.org is the only program on that list that does not require any downloads (or registration), so it is the safest program shown in that article.
MidiPro.org was created 2/1/2017. A Google search shows no negative reports whatsoever. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 19:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If "the accuracy of the content inside the article" is the issue, you can simply go to the website to see it is exactly as described: https://MidiPro.org
You can also see that all the features in the article are described in the Help File: https://MidiPro.org/Help.php
If I was to spend money to get reviews on several additional websites, I am afraid that you would continually say that those websites are not good enough.
Here is a reliable secondary source, is this good enough? https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html
Anyone with common sense can see that MidiPro.org is legit and relevant, and that Wikipedia users would benefit by having it appear in all applicable categories. If you delete this article, your inflexible policies are stifling innovation. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sending the URL of this section to the Music Department heads at 15 Universities who use MidiPro.org regularly, so they can see the arrogant, nasty and disrespectful remarks that Wikipedia admins make to people who try to contribute to Wikipedia, and so they can inform their students to never waste their time trying to submit a useful article to Wikipedia. Drmies said this me: "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do.", and "we're not in the business of doing innovation--that's really what MySpace is for." Really? Do you talk to people like that in real life, or only when you're hiding in your room? MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The Classical Archives was created in 1994, and has never had any advertising or user-entered editorial whatsoever. Their statement ("MidiPro.org is the only Online Midi Editor") has been prominently displayed on their website for more than two years (since at least April 26 2017): https://web.archive.org/web/20170426053227/https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html
Several universities are actively following this dispute, since they hope that this extremely relevant article remains in Wikipedia. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow, the universities are going to love that Wikipedia editors don't consider Classical Archives ( https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html) to be a "secondary source". MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 14:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
When universities see that WP editors mark an article for deletion without even looking at the article (Markeer said "lack of evidenced notability, no secondary sources"), they will certainly not advise their colleagues and students to waste their time creating useful and relevant articles for Wikipedia, when their time will be at the mercy of editors whose mentality and purpose (to receive more WP accolades) has been demonstrated by the text within this discussion. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
*Keep - I am a music professor at Vanderbilt University. I learned about the
ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player from the
Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article. To be frank, most of the other programs on that list are worthless junk. As stated in their article, the
ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player is the only online midi editor. I have used it, it is fantastic, so I will be recommending it to all my students.
I would not have learned about this program had it not appeared in the
Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article.
Why would you omit an article for the only program that is endorsed by
Classical_Archives? Why would a Wikipedia editor vote to remove it without even looking at the article?
I also noticed that this is the only midi editor mentioned in the
Microtonal_music article. Why would you omit it?
I reviewed some of the articles that were created by the Wikipedia editors that voted to remove the article in question. The articles they created do not have references that are nearly as strong as
Classical_Archives.
I have contacted several prominent microtonal composers, so they can also follow this debate. If you remove the article in question from
Microtonal_music and
Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, your priorities are definitely in the wrong place.
Stravinsky411 (
talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)--Comment added by a
WP:sockpuppet of
User:MySonLikesTrump.
Vanjagenije
(talk)
21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
*Keep - I am a film composer. I am glad that I read about the ADSR Online Midi Editor in the Microtonal Music article, because I now use it every day. I am not the same person as Stravinsky411, we are in the library together this morning.
Their article fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for a new article (I read the rules).
What does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements is the arrogant attitude that the Wikipedia editors have expressed towards the person who is defending their article. What type of pompous *** would begin a comment with Ahem.? The same person also said "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do". If the other editors want to do something constructive, they should file a complaint against that editor.
I have donated money to Wikipedia for the past five years. If this important article is omitted, not only will my donations stop, but I will also inform the other members of my film composers' group of this injustice, and of the disgusting attitude that the Wikipedia editors have demonstrated in this discussion. To mark an article for deletion without even reading the article is disgraceful.
IWonAnOscar (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) --Comment added by a
WP:sockpuppet of
User:MySonLikesTrump.
Vanjagenije
(talk)
21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite considerable volume from one editor (even without considering apparent socks), the discussion was very lopsided in indicating that there is not sufficient evidence of notability for this subject. RL0919 ( talk) 05:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
No indication of notability for this software. ... discospinster talk 01:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
For the following reasons, this article is notable and therefore should not be removed:
1. The ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player article describes the only online program that provides the features that are described in this article.
2. There is no other program (online or otherwise) that provides the ability to create a midi file that can play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.
3. The microtonal community (i.e. virtually all 21st century composers) will be missing out if they are not made aware of this free online program.
I thank you for keeping this worthwhile article in Wikipedia.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 01:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The person who deleted this article apparently deletes many, many articles without spending any time to review the notability of the articles that they are deleting.
As an example, in the Microtonal_music article, under the section of "Creating microtonal music", they deleted the text which described how to create microtonal music, so the section made no sense after their edit.
On 7/30/19, after I created the "Creating microtonal music" section in the Microtonal_music article, I received messages at my website from four college professors who thanked me for creating the only tool which allows them and their students to play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.
The person who deleted this article, and incorrectly edited the section in the Microtonal_music article, is causing damage to Wikipedia's reputation.
I sincerely hope that a high-level administrator takes a good look at the full history of the person who deleted this article.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player program was mentioned in the Microtonal_music article (with a favorable personal response from four college professors) two weeks before the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article was created. That in itself proves that the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article is relevant and notable to the Microtonal community.
The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article (which is being considered for deletion) contains citations from 3 reputable websites:
https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API
Take a look at Discospinster's talk section. It would seem to be very difficult for them to truly judge each article's notability, considering the huge quantity of articles that they are deleting.
Again, why would someone delete text which describes how to create microtonal music, in a section entitled "Creating microtonal music" (see the Microtonal_music article).
Thank you again for your reply.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 02:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: MySonLikesTrump, I understand your reasoning behind wanting to keep this article, but please realize that "notable" has a relatively narrow definition on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability requirements are unrelated to any of your three points. From WP:N: To be notable under the general notability guideline, a subject has to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Has this piece of software been covered in reliable independent news or other sources? I don't see any on Google, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. K.Koopa ( talk) 02:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand how your rule would normally apply when deciding if an article should be accepted about a person. However, 90% of the products listed in the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article have NOT "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For that reason, and the reasons that I previously described, this case certainly deserves an exception.
I really don't want to inform the heads of all the music departments that use MidiPro.org that Wikipedia refused to accept an article that describes something that they have already deemed to be incredibly important to their professors and students, just because Wikipedia feels it has not yet received "significant coverage".
Again, I understand why you have to deny articles that have little notability or relevance. However, that is not the case here.
Please consider all these issues when making your decision. Thank you again for your consideration.
MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Four music professors who learned about this product from the Microtonal_music article contacted me through MidiPro.org, to inform me that they are recommending this program to their students. If this article is removed, other music scholars will not be made aware of this program that greatly increases the usage of microtonal music. That makes this article deserving of a unique exception, even though it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources". MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 18:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Regarding your concern "Without reliable sources we have no way of making sure that what visiting readers see actually is a reliable impression": If MidiPro.org is malicious then people will complain, and then you blacklist MidiPro.org.
Of the 50 programs listed at Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, very few have "reliable sources". Except for MidiPro.org, every program on that list has to be downloaded at the user's risk. MidiPro.org is the only program on that list that does not require any downloads (or registration), so it is the safest program shown in that article.
MidiPro.org was created 2/1/2017. A Google search shows no negative reports whatsoever. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 19:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If "the accuracy of the content inside the article" is the issue, you can simply go to the website to see it is exactly as described: https://MidiPro.org
You can also see that all the features in the article are described in the Help File: https://MidiPro.org/Help.php
If I was to spend money to get reviews on several additional websites, I am afraid that you would continually say that those websites are not good enough.
Here is a reliable secondary source, is this good enough? https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html
Anyone with common sense can see that MidiPro.org is legit and relevant, and that Wikipedia users would benefit by having it appear in all applicable categories. If you delete this article, your inflexible policies are stifling innovation. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sending the URL of this section to the Music Department heads at 15 Universities who use MidiPro.org regularly, so they can see the arrogant, nasty and disrespectful remarks that Wikipedia admins make to people who try to contribute to Wikipedia, and so they can inform their students to never waste their time trying to submit a useful article to Wikipedia. Drmies said this me: "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do.", and "we're not in the business of doing innovation--that's really what MySpace is for." Really? Do you talk to people like that in real life, or only when you're hiding in your room? MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The Classical Archives was created in 1994, and has never had any advertising or user-entered editorial whatsoever. Their statement ("MidiPro.org is the only Online Midi Editor") has been prominently displayed on their website for more than two years (since at least April 26 2017): https://web.archive.org/web/20170426053227/https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html
Several universities are actively following this dispute, since they hope that this extremely relevant article remains in Wikipedia. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow, the universities are going to love that Wikipedia editors don't consider Classical Archives ( https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html) to be a "secondary source". MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 14:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
When universities see that WP editors mark an article for deletion without even looking at the article (Markeer said "lack of evidenced notability, no secondary sources"), they will certainly not advise their colleagues and students to waste their time creating useful and relevant articles for Wikipedia, when their time will be at the mercy of editors whose mentality and purpose (to receive more WP accolades) has been demonstrated by the text within this discussion. MySonLikesTrump ( talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
*Keep - I am a music professor at Vanderbilt University. I learned about the
ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player from the
Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article. To be frank, most of the other programs on that list are worthless junk. As stated in their article, the
ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player is the only online midi editor. I have used it, it is fantastic, so I will be recommending it to all my students.
I would not have learned about this program had it not appeared in the
Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article.
Why would you omit an article for the only program that is endorsed by
Classical_Archives? Why would a Wikipedia editor vote to remove it without even looking at the article?
I also noticed that this is the only midi editor mentioned in the
Microtonal_music article. Why would you omit it?
I reviewed some of the articles that were created by the Wikipedia editors that voted to remove the article in question. The articles they created do not have references that are nearly as strong as
Classical_Archives.
I have contacted several prominent microtonal composers, so they can also follow this debate. If you remove the article in question from
Microtonal_music and
Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, your priorities are definitely in the wrong place.
Stravinsky411 (
talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)--Comment added by a
WP:sockpuppet of
User:MySonLikesTrump.
Vanjagenije
(talk)
21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
*Keep - I am a film composer. I am glad that I read about the ADSR Online Midi Editor in the Microtonal Music article, because I now use it every day. I am not the same person as Stravinsky411, we are in the library together this morning.
Their article fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for a new article (I read the rules).
What does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements is the arrogant attitude that the Wikipedia editors have expressed towards the person who is defending their article. What type of pompous *** would begin a comment with Ahem.? The same person also said "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do". If the other editors want to do something constructive, they should file a complaint against that editor.
I have donated money to Wikipedia for the past five years. If this important article is omitted, not only will my donations stop, but I will also inform the other members of my film composers' group of this injustice, and of the disgusting attitude that the Wikipedia editors have demonstrated in this discussion. To mark an article for deletion without even reading the article is disgraceful.
IWonAnOscar (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) --Comment added by a
WP:sockpuppet of
User:MySonLikesTrump.
Vanjagenije
(talk)
21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)