Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VSXu

VSXu

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails WP:NSOFT. Prod contested by an IP who added this to the article. Looks like an interview with the founders. After I removed deadlinks, all the other sources are to current or archived versions of its website. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is this article mentioning they used VSXu in their research: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8907207

And this thesis draft: http://mtiid.calarts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GabrielRG_Thesis_draft_forsubmission_FINALFORPRINT.pdf

Also this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.2868.pdf

And this: https://phaidra.kug.ac.at/open/o:60753 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawvvd (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly another factor that you can weigh in is that there are not many projects / actors in the music/audio visualization "market" and while (disclaimer) I am one of the developers of VSXu, I would still like to have a good listing of, and good articles about other projects that operate within this segment.

If wikipedia by policy is to treat music visualization software as not notable enough, then maybe most or all individual pages for software listed on the Music_visualization page should be merged / removed instead of allowing a page for each one. Just a listing of the software and link to their home pages, or no links at all.

A lot (if not all) of them have, and are going to continue to have, this same "notability issue"/"primary sources issue" simply because the market for any of these products is small and they are not mainstream - neither in the scientific community nor in the public eye. Thus it is highly unlikely that say, The New York Times, will ever write about any of these, or any articles ever being published in any source that is peer reviewed.

However, while not mainstream, the documents listed above clearly show that the field (not VSXu in particular, others were used as well - as they should be) is an active topic within high schools and universities.

Students use these software programs to do research.

In addition, several tens of thousands of home users / professional video / audio artists / streamers / DJ's / VJ's use them to enjoy or produce entertainment.

The problem (from wikipedia's perspective) is that these users (of the software projects) don't write peer reviewed papers or books published by well-established publishing houses about their experiences with said software.

Considering that music visualizers is a form of casual entertainment, requiring or even suggesting this of end users is preposterous and far removed from reality.

Thus, it is easy to argue that the notability requirements that wikipedia puts in place makes it close to impossible to prove notability and is therefore not a good metric when applied to music visualizers.

Now, having been active in this market since 1999, it's my opinion that wikipedia has no rival when it comes to providing generic written information about these projects.

Finally, it is my strong opinion that allowing for and improving articles within this area of wikipedia (rather than decimating it) is most beneficial for its readers.

Jawvvd (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]