TK5610L

From the originator of the article - no doubt the original article needed much editing. Thank you to all who have reviewed and contributed. Here are my current thoughts about it, I hope you will review / comment: The Hear It See It Music format, though delivered via a web page, perhaps does not need an HTML code “example” cited in the article. That process (creating a ‘frames’ web page) is described well elsewhere. So, the new version I have drafted (below), which also no doubt needs considerable editing, has eliminated the HTML code example and concentrates on the entire ‘system’.

Also, tried to avoid “instructions, advice, or how-to content”. It may still be “confusing or unclear for some readers” and “need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling”. This editor admits to limited skills, so hope you will edit or point out details to achieve a better article.

The “Single source” issue - I need some help with this. Not a requirement to have multiple sources as best I know as long as the material is not likely to be challenged. Possibly misunderstanding the guidelines now, so please tell me more particular details about it. One of the challenges creating this article: it is a new subject without a long history. Again, as far as I know, being a “new” subject is not a particular restriction for an article. Also, as noted in this (below) version “Applications of the Hear It See It Music format are often restricted (not available the general public) in order to control distribution.” (composers, publishers etc. often grant limited access for particular musical projects). This condition also relates to the notability of this article's subject. “New” and applications “often times not available the general public” creates little interest to review by additional online sources. Also, possibly because the format is relatively simple in many respects (“relatively simple” is also not a requirement for a subject, though again, I could be missing something in the guidelines).

“Very few or no other articles link to it.” Hope to change this soon, maybe best to edit again before doing so.

Looking forward to your comments and advise TK5610L (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved draft

Draft moved to: User:TK5610L/sandboxTK5610L (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at your draft and made a few corrections — for instance, you don't need the [[XYZ|XYZ]] wikilink when you're linking to a page that has that title exactly: so you should write [[User Talk:Salvio giuliano]] to have User Talk:Salvio giuliano and not [[User Talk:Salvio giuliano|User Talk:Salvio giuliano]] —. And words like "popular" are not neutral and, thereby, violate WP:NPOV, a guideline that requires all articles to be neutrally written. This phrase "To maximize end-user viewing and listening control" looks a little non-neutral to me too, but I really wouldn't know how to make it look better...

Then, your article looks good. It's just a little too detailed, for my tastes, making it look like a how-to guide and not an article. But that can be adjusted, once you go live with it. ;)

It's not necessary to have more than one source, it's good though. I tried to find some more sources with Google, but I couldn't find any. There's a problem, however: your only source is the official site, so it counts as self-published material, and self-published material is not enough to guarantee notability. This essay (NOT a guideline) should help you establish what notability is in this case. In general, however, this is our notability guideline

And as far as the orphan thing goes, it's the last of your problem ;). True, all articles should be linked to by others, but no articles has ever been deleted for failing that. ;)

If you take my advice, I'd concentrate on finding reliable sources to prove that the subject is notable... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: Thank you for you advice and insight. I will edit a bit with your input in mind.

I’m not sure how “notability” would be established since most uses are not accessible to the public. There is one web site that is public at this time but may not remain so for long - this web site uses the format, but does not review it or comment about it, so, not a ‘source’ in that sense. In Spanish on the British Council web site, each title has a link to “Practicá ONLINE” using the format: Sporting Nations Choir Should this link be included in the article, even though it is temporary?

As far as reviews (as sources) - the format is not only new, but also so ‘transparent’ (easy to verify by a quick examination) there’s virtually no reason for any source to review it. Though many could review the format, it is so relatively simple there is no need to do so.

As I understand, word about Hear It See It Music format is spreading quickly, so maybe the “notability” and “sources” issues will be resolved soon. TK5610L (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hear It See It Music

A tag has been placed on Hear It See It Music, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hear It See It Music

The article Hear It See It Music has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability concerns per Wikipedia:Notability criteria for inclusion. In particular, severely lacking significant coverage in multiple 3rd party sources. No reliable 3rd party sources given in this article. None found either (among 9 Google hits returned). This product is still too new for sufficient notability to be established for inclusion in Wikipedia.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability Considerations

The notability concern refers to Hear It See It Music format as a product. Apparently, in a traditional sense, this format is not a product - at least not sold or offered to a market.

Perhaps because of the unique character of this article, it does not need significant coverage in multiple 3rd party sources as a format? Will not list all here now, but the individual elements of the format have 3rd party sources; for overview, see internal links: frameset, Adobe Reader, Flash media player (example: Flowplayer), scorewriter software (example: Finale). Hear It See It Music format simply puts all the elements together. Because the format itself is ‘transparent’ (easy to verify by examination of the individual elements) there’s virtually no reason for any source to review it as a format.

Perhaps a person most concerned with web design would consider the format a web page template, however, a musician with a need to utilize a format to (from the article) ‘deliver written music and recorded music online via a single web page’ could find the article useful especially if the musician did not have the technical expertise of a web page designer.

A quick Google search for “Sibelius Scorch” reveals significant interest in a format to ‘deliver written music and recorded music online via a single web page’, as that is what Sibelius Scorch does. Though achieved in a much different manner, the Hear It See It Music format provides an alternative to Sibelius Scorch and other methods. Perhaps more detail should be provided in the Comparison / Contrast section, however, the very nature of (from the article) “Delivery systems using a single Audio / Video formatted file (examples: MPEG, AVI, FLV) present graphics and/or audio constraints not found with the Hear It See It Music format.”

As mentioned before, applications of the Hear It See It Music format are often restricted (not available the general public) in order to control distribution. (composers, publishers etc. often grant limited access for particular musical projects). So, examples of use could be difficult to locate. Possibly these examples of use would not qualify as a 3rd party source for the notability concern? TK5610L (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

I deleted the Articles for Deletion page you created, because it was an attempt to keep the article, not to delete it. All you needed to do was remove the {{prod}} tags and defend the notability on the talkpage, which you did. You might want to read up on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions while you wait for someone else to file an actual deletion request. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Musical Notation Internet Publishing

I have nominated Musical Notation Internet Publishing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Notation Internet Publishing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hear It See It Music

I have nominated Hear It See It Music, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hear It See It Music. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

External linking

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page David Myers do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I would strongly suggest that you give musical notation articles a rest, and go work on something else you're interested in. That way, you'll get a better idea of our community norms, and can come back here later without getting jumped all over. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)