- 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fast forward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dicdef, unsourced since at least 2009. No way could this be a legit article. No notability. Nothing encyclopedic, no viable way to flesh it out. "Rewind" and "Pause" don't have articles, why should "fast forward"? Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP isn't a dictionary - there is no basis for an article here Delete ---- nonsense ferret 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)I'm withdrawing my vote so as not to get in the way of consensus building, and I don't feel strongly enough to dissent. However, looking at the article I do feel that what is being described are particular features of different recording devices, and I can't help thinking that it would be better to have the material there, but no biggie I'm sure someone will link it in somehow ---- nonsense ferret 23:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]Move Fast forward (disambiguation) to replace it. --Geniac (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Article looks much better now. --Geniac (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Move Fast forward (disambiguation) to replace it, leaving a note about this usage at the top. JIP | Talk 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fast forward (disambiguation) is fine. No need for this article. BigJim707 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move as stated above, there is real no need for this article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 06:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's no way this could be a legit nomination because the nominator, as usual, hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, spending less than a minute to use Twinkle to create the nomination in a knee-jerk fashion. The concept here is a substantial one which can cover the original tape deck design and mechanism; the reimplementation in newer types of media and players; and the general use of the concept as a metaphor or analogy which resulted in appearing in dozens of books titles. I have made a start on developing the topic. More anon. Warden (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Warden, please do not be offensive and assume good faith, the article is not redeemable, it is not going to grow beyond a stub level, there isn't much value to add to the article as the information is purely technical, a mention and its meaning in the desambig page is enough. Even though fast forward is a diffused mechanism, there is no real reason for keeping its own article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a concept, not just a word, and the article has potential for expansion. There are enough uses as a metaphor to justify a rather substantial article. DGG (at NYPL) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
- Keep I added a couple of paragraphs on fast-forwarding in digital video and three peer-reviewed publications verifying the added prose. I don't understand the nom's assertion that this topic is not encyclopedic. I suppose as a user, pushing or clicking a fast-forward button seems trivial, but from engineering, algorithmic and psychological points of view, the fast-forward process is not simple. Warden added a nice contribution to the mechanical aspect and I added material on digital considerations. For AfD, the article now includes multiple in-depth reliable sources in the form of peer-reviewed papers, demonstrating notability of the topic. While the article could still use work, the remaining problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Notability of the topic and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic is certainly something that can be developed, and Mark viking's edits in particular have demonstrated both that it's notable and that it's more complex than the simple definition some may have assumed it to be.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a notable subject even if obscure to many, an encyclopedic treatment can include the technology and any advancements that came from this. Insomesia (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (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.