Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic 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 no consensus. No agreement about whether to delete outright or to reduce to a list of notable synthesizers. Sandstein 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic synthesizers

[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)

Completely uncited (and has been for many years, possibly since it was created in 2008). No criteria for what constitutes a "classic" synthesizer. Seems to be a dump of original research based on what various editors reckon are classic synths. Popcornduff (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear inclusion criteria, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS (oh, the irony). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of synthesizers and do the usual things to narrow the scope of the list to those in the article, which already follow the rule of being not merely notable but influential. The lede addresses this distinction already: <synthesizers> "which marked a turning point in musical sound or style". "Classic" is of course objectionable, but I am quite sure we all agree for the most part on "notable", which has not been raised as an objection by anyone including the nominator, probably because almost all of the scores of synthesizers listed have articles. I would accept List of influential synthesizers but I doubt anyone else would, and I admit it suffers from the same problems as "classic", only less so. Anarchangel (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a "List of synthesizers" page might be a good idea, and I hadn't thought of that. If the outcome of this nom is to delete then I might make a new, sourced "List of synthesizers" page myself. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of synthesizers as proposed by Anarchangel. If List of synthesizers is desireable content, List of classic synthesizers is a good leg up and these contributions should be attributed by preserving revision history of the list through move. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (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.