Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tape replay keyboard

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tape replay keyboard (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)

Unreferenced original research that duplicates a number of other articles such as Mellotron, Chamberlin, Birotron, and even Optigan (which doesn't use tapes so shouldn't be mentioned here). While you might think the topic is notable, I can't find any reliable sources that document the genre of tape replay keyboards as a whole outside of Mellotron or Chamberlin. It seems an unlikely search term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seem to be books about this stuff such as Vintage Synthesizers. As there were several brands and models, it seems reasonable to have an umbrella article. Warden (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got Mark Vail's book, and there are a few paragraphs about non-Mellotron competitors, but again it's all within the context of that instrument, rather than the genre as a whole. Another possibility is we could redirect to either Sampling (music) or Sample-based synthesis, both of which already has a cursory mention of this technology, and expand it. That would work for me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 3 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 10 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 18 September 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.