Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan B Synthesizers

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 delete. Tone 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B Synthesizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Rather dubiously referenced article about a company with no particular apparent significance. The current article is a lengthy opinion piece, that if it were about a living person would undoubtedly be speedy-deleted as an attack page; the version prior to the recent expansion (created by User:PlanBguy, FWIW) is unreferenced and without even the vaguest assertion or indication of notability.
Disclosure: this AFD was prompted by a (gasp) post at a BADSITE (fetches the smelling salts). Just because you don't like the person saying something, doesn't mean they're wrong.  – iridescent 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, this article is inappropriate as written. In addition, the entry appears to have originated with (and multiple edits by) one of the principles in the company.
  See entry for MOTM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOTM) as an example of a less biased manufacturer's profile in the same business. Consider rewriting this one in a similar format?
  .

Both articles should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synthesizer_manufacturing_companies.
A wider range of candidates are covered in industry magazines like Electronic Musician (http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/emusic_analog_renaissance/) or Sound-On-Sound (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/goingmodular.htm). 209.190.181.178 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lest it get relisted again. Clearly nobody cares about the article. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not established. Totally opinion ridden article. Quantpole (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2009 (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.