Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ListenBrainz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 MusicBrainz. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ListenBrainz[edit]

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

ListenBrainz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was originally deprodded because one user claimed, there are over half a dozen pieces of research involving ListenBrainz listed in Google Scholar, including a textbook on recommender systems. it [sic] is covered in the EFF's writeup on MetaBrainz. this should cover points 1 and 4 of software notability. When I redirected it to MusicBrainz because its notability was pretty thin, it was reverted because it seems notable, go to AfD if you disagree. So, here it is.

May rationale is that none of the content in that article assert notability. Like all the articles about MetaBrainz products, it is there to sell the product than of encyclopaedic nature.

One cited sources by EFF talk about Musicbrainz with a disclosure that one of the staff member of the cited source being a board member of MB. Two of the other cited sources are paywalled, thus inaccessible, the rest are primary or are not reliable sources. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Being paywalled has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable or usable -- see WP:PAYWALL, which is part of official policy. I don't have access to those papers so I can't weigh in either way on them, but "two of the other sources are paywalled" is not a valid argument. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that it's not. I'm saying how will I know without seeing it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • del no independent significant coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions on this potential deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to MusicBrainz. I had a look at the three paywalled refs - Singh is a good, detailed description of ListenBrainz but it's coauthored by some of the developers so not independent; Yadav has no mention of ListenBrainz at all; Schedl has two sentences about ListenBrainz (and a bit more about MusicBrainz generally). I think it'd be better just to describe it as part of the bigger MusicBrainz project. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have the wrong article. Section 4 of Yadav talks about it extensively (p. 51-53). Walkingpoodle (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yadav is very clearly a primary source Mach61 23:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added additional citations to address your concerns. Two new papers were added, both of which have readable pdfs on Google Scholar. Pocaro and Yanav use this project in studies of music listening and recommender systems respectively, which should cover software notability 1.Walkingpoodle (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a quick read, The Music Listening Histories Dataset is about MB though and more about last.fm than LB (only one mention). Re Towards Data Science: still, only a single mention of listenbrainz. In all, not this a great deal. If I was you, I'd save your breath and use them on MB and improve on their already thin notability rather than waste them here. Subproducts are rarely notable. It isn't last.fm and will never be, not in a billion years. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...still, the article does not assert why should it be notable on its own and these source doesn't appear to do much, hence why I still stick to my decision. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed additional sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Of the ten sources, three are MusicBrainz blogs, five are scientific papers which merely use MusicBrains (and are primary sources regardless), and nos. 2 and 3 lack significant coverage. Mach61 19:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I concur with the analysis of the sources by Mach61. Academic papers which mention the service because they used it are not inherently coverage of the service, and none appear to address the service in enough depth to meet SIGCOV. Tollens (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ListenBrainz&oldid=1212511157"