Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command test record
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 18 September 2011 (Closing debate, result was merge to Command Records). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 02:06, 18 September 2011 by TParis (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was merge to Command Records)
- 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 merge to Command Records. v/r - TP 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Command test record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability. There are several kinds of such LPs--I don't see how or why this one is special. Anything that is really relevant (and can be sourced) could be included in LP album or Command Records or somesuch. I just don't see this particular product meriting its own article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These records were a thing of their day, and there might be a case for an article on them in general, discussing the different approaches used. (Not volunteering...) I can't see much case for an article on just one brand's product. I did decline a speedy, on the grounds that the red-linked performer criterion probably couldn't apply to a record of tones and anonymous feet crossing a wooden floored room from left to right, and then back again (assuming that's on this one). The performers on the B side are notable, but they are just there as fill up and promo. Peridon (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No objection to folding the article into the Command Records article... --Marmelmm (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Fails WP:GNG by itself. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge One of many stereo test records. Are there multiple independent and reliable sources, such as Stereo Review or Consumer Reports, or HiFi columns of other magazines or major newspapers, or technical books of the time, with significant coverage (not mere listings)? Edison (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I note that the author of the article (Marmelmm) is happy with this. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Not sure how much there is to merge, but why not? Might not be independently notable, but is certainly a part of Command Records' history, worth at least a bullet point. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per above. Sven Manguard summed up my thoughts on the subject. Gongshow Talk 02:18, 15 September 2011 (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.