- 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. Sandstein 10:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly referenced comparison table listing features of mostly non-notable open source software packages. Of the seven footnotes here, very few are actually directly verifying facts about the individual packages in the list in a notability-making way: three are clarifying notes rather than references, one is a package's own self-published content about itself, and one is just about the idea of using Zoom to make music and is here solely to support the statement that Zoom isn't ideal for that purpose and these other alternatives are better. And while two of the sources would help to support an article about the overall concept of remote music performance software (which if we have one yet I can't find because it isn't at that title), but aren't doing much to actually support a comparison table of the individual packages, since they don't really verify any of the facts in the table.
And furthermore, only one of these packages actually has a Wikipedia article to link to -- when I first found the page, most of the entries were being offlinked to their own websites in lieu of Wikipedia articles, which had to be stripped as an
WP:ELNO violation. So it's mostly a list of non-notable things, which was clearly intended at least partially to help promote them and drive traffic to their download pages -- and that's not what Wikipedia is for.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I was concerned about this article from the very start, hence the tags. I decided to give it a chance as I could see it was being worked on. A list with only one notable entry has no navigational purpose and the sources fail to establish notability. The subtle promotion is a clear example of what Wikipedia is not as well. Spiderone 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- IMPROVE or MERGE There is also NINJAM, which has a Wikipedia article. We could move this table to the Networked_music_performance page. Not sure about YouTube videos, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiNkzClzh98 might contain some information. Or https://ksltv.com/449043/socially-distancing-for-musicians-a-quick-guide-to-low-latency-audio/? M0zohow ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Moving the table to Networked_music_performance would be a good idea if we think a standalone page is not warranted. The table is directly related to the subject of that page. gilgongo ( talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The encyclopedic intention of this page is to document a type of software that shares a common purpose in allowing musicians to play together online with low/no latency. As such, this is a specialised area (or subtaxa) of software development fundamentally different in purpose to that of video conferencing such as Zoom, for which latency isn't a crucial condition. On the issue of notability of the software listed, this is in keeping with WP:CSC ("created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles"). So User:bearcat assertion that "it's mostly a list of non-notable things" needs to be clarified. As to "intended at least partially to help promote them and drive traffic to their download pages" then I would say that many other lists such as Comparison_of_Linux_distributions or Comparison_of_file_comparison_tools would be the same. As to the issue of citations, we can work to improve those. gilgongo ( talk) 09:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am afraid to post here, as I am unfamiliar with your process. Not sure I even remember how to sign this properly. But I was very happy to find the article, the comparison is quite useful for someone trying to choose between these programs. Several of the programs listed deserve their own pages. Please give them time to be created. This is just as relevant as other software comparison articles. I hope to contribute to improve its quality, but I find Wikipedia difficult to edit, and its process intimidating. (I've contributed for 15 years.) Thanks. Davipo ( talk) 22:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Preface: This is my personal opinion - I am a drummer and I am not affiliated to any of the platforms given in the table. The obvious purpose of the table is to provide unbiased information (derived from personal experience, thus it is not easy to cite valid 2nd level sources) to musicians who cannot currently meet personally due to the corona pandemic. It appears to not propose or advertise any particular software but tries to list the properties of known platforms so as to be able for a new user (musician) to check if they can fulfill the platfom's requirements (and the links to the single platforms appear to be merely meant to help finding additional information, not to create network traffic). E.g. my electronic drumset outputs digital audio only with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, so I cannot use Jamulus directly as this platform only supports 48 kHz. Of course there is room for improvement in the table: The platform rows should be sorted alphabetically based on the "Name" column and the (many) question marks should be replaced by actual values - this is a call to the owners of the single platforms. And from my PoV the table shall not be merged or moved elsewhere because it is supposed to contain crucial information not easily found otherwise (and it has already been linked by /info/en/?search=Networked_music_performance). To judge if an open source software package is non-notable should be left to the reader. Drummer1154 ( talk) 16:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - When looking precisely for the kind of information shown here (because several other people had asked me related questions), I was grateful to find this page. Some of the entries listed might appear 'non-notable' at present because it is a field developing rapidly and recently due to the pandemic, and certainly it can be improved, but I would dispute that it serves a primarily promotional purpose, and I suspect deleting it would merely result in someone trying to recreate a similar page in a few months' time. Merging it with networked music performance would merely make that page more unwieldy, and likewise probably result in someone splitting it off again somewhere down the line. Hence better to attach tags, suggest improvements, create stubs (at least) for packages with significant numbers of users and active development (such as JamKazam), and continue working on it. Ozaru ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep looks trivial at first glance but a deeper look shows that this subject warrants the article. Santosh L ( talk) 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep References have been added and arguments for keeping this page (relevance) can be seen in the discussion above. The claim that these software packages are "non-notable open source software packages" is not true for Sonobus (see commit history: [1] and issues tab [2] for activity, do a google search) Jamulus (see commit history and issues page, multiple articles which are already linked in the page and google page). JamKazam: See JamKazam forum [3] and multiple articles on Google. SoundJack and a lot of other mentioned software packages is part of DigitalStage: [4] which seems to be supported by Swiss and German officials. M0zohow ( talk) 20:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- ^ "essej/sonobus". GitHub. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
- ^ "Sonobus issues". GitHub.
- ^ "JamKazam Forums - Jamkazam Forums". forum.jamkazam.com. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
- ^ "Features". digital-stage.org. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
- 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. Sandstein 10:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly referenced comparison table listing features of mostly non-notable open source software packages. Of the seven footnotes here, very few are actually directly verifying facts about the individual packages in the list in a notability-making way: three are clarifying notes rather than references, one is a package's own self-published content about itself, and one is just about the idea of using Zoom to make music and is here solely to support the statement that Zoom isn't ideal for that purpose and these other alternatives are better. And while two of the sources would help to support an article about the overall concept of remote music performance software (which if we have one yet I can't find because it isn't at that title), but aren't doing much to actually support a comparison table of the individual packages, since they don't really verify any of the facts in the table.
And furthermore, only one of these packages actually has a Wikipedia article to link to -- when I first found the page, most of the entries were being offlinked to their own websites in lieu of Wikipedia articles, which had to be stripped as an
WP:ELNO violation. So it's mostly a list of non-notable things, which was clearly intended at least partially to help promote them and drive traffic to their download pages -- and that's not what Wikipedia is for.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I was concerned about this article from the very start, hence the tags. I decided to give it a chance as I could see it was being worked on. A list with only one notable entry has no navigational purpose and the sources fail to establish notability. The subtle promotion is a clear example of what Wikipedia is not as well. Spiderone 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- IMPROVE or MERGE There is also NINJAM, which has a Wikipedia article. We could move this table to the Networked_music_performance page. Not sure about YouTube videos, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiNkzClzh98 might contain some information. Or https://ksltv.com/449043/socially-distancing-for-musicians-a-quick-guide-to-low-latency-audio/? M0zohow ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Moving the table to Networked_music_performance would be a good idea if we think a standalone page is not warranted. The table is directly related to the subject of that page. gilgongo ( talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The encyclopedic intention of this page is to document a type of software that shares a common purpose in allowing musicians to play together online with low/no latency. As such, this is a specialised area (or subtaxa) of software development fundamentally different in purpose to that of video conferencing such as Zoom, for which latency isn't a crucial condition. On the issue of notability of the software listed, this is in keeping with WP:CSC ("created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles"). So User:bearcat assertion that "it's mostly a list of non-notable things" needs to be clarified. As to "intended at least partially to help promote them and drive traffic to their download pages" then I would say that many other lists such as Comparison_of_Linux_distributions or Comparison_of_file_comparison_tools would be the same. As to the issue of citations, we can work to improve those. gilgongo ( talk) 09:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am afraid to post here, as I am unfamiliar with your process. Not sure I even remember how to sign this properly. But I was very happy to find the article, the comparison is quite useful for someone trying to choose between these programs. Several of the programs listed deserve their own pages. Please give them time to be created. This is just as relevant as other software comparison articles. I hope to contribute to improve its quality, but I find Wikipedia difficult to edit, and its process intimidating. (I've contributed for 15 years.) Thanks. Davipo ( talk) 22:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Preface: This is my personal opinion - I am a drummer and I am not affiliated to any of the platforms given in the table. The obvious purpose of the table is to provide unbiased information (derived from personal experience, thus it is not easy to cite valid 2nd level sources) to musicians who cannot currently meet personally due to the corona pandemic. It appears to not propose or advertise any particular software but tries to list the properties of known platforms so as to be able for a new user (musician) to check if they can fulfill the platfom's requirements (and the links to the single platforms appear to be merely meant to help finding additional information, not to create network traffic). E.g. my electronic drumset outputs digital audio only with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, so I cannot use Jamulus directly as this platform only supports 48 kHz. Of course there is room for improvement in the table: The platform rows should be sorted alphabetically based on the "Name" column and the (many) question marks should be replaced by actual values - this is a call to the owners of the single platforms. And from my PoV the table shall not be merged or moved elsewhere because it is supposed to contain crucial information not easily found otherwise (and it has already been linked by /info/en/?search=Networked_music_performance). To judge if an open source software package is non-notable should be left to the reader. Drummer1154 ( talk) 16:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - When looking precisely for the kind of information shown here (because several other people had asked me related questions), I was grateful to find this page. Some of the entries listed might appear 'non-notable' at present because it is a field developing rapidly and recently due to the pandemic, and certainly it can be improved, but I would dispute that it serves a primarily promotional purpose, and I suspect deleting it would merely result in someone trying to recreate a similar page in a few months' time. Merging it with networked music performance would merely make that page more unwieldy, and likewise probably result in someone splitting it off again somewhere down the line. Hence better to attach tags, suggest improvements, create stubs (at least) for packages with significant numbers of users and active development (such as JamKazam), and continue working on it. Ozaru ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep looks trivial at first glance but a deeper look shows that this subject warrants the article. Santosh L ( talk) 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep References have been added and arguments for keeping this page (relevance) can be seen in the discussion above. The claim that these software packages are "non-notable open source software packages" is not true for Sonobus (see commit history: [1] and issues tab [2] for activity, do a google search) Jamulus (see commit history and issues page, multiple articles which are already linked in the page and google page). JamKazam: See JamKazam forum [3] and multiple articles on Google. SoundJack and a lot of other mentioned software packages is part of DigitalStage: [4] which seems to be supported by Swiss and German officials. M0zohow ( talk) 20:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- ^ "essej/sonobus". GitHub. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
- ^ "Sonobus issues". GitHub.
- ^ "JamKazam Forums - Jamkazam Forums". forum.jamkazam.com. Retrieved 2021-01-07.
- ^ "Features". digital-stage.org. Retrieved 2021-01-07.