Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production of gramophone 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 keep. Per the snowball clause (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production of gramophone records[edit]

It's such a shame to nominate what is obviously a labour of love. Unfortunately it is an essay and original research. I'm hoping that a home can be found for it off Wikipedia, since work should never be wasted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was only a split from the regular gramophone records article, as I saw the notice on the top of that article, so I took action. It would be better to rewrite my split instead of deleting it. --Newtown11 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be saved. It needs editing and references, but I'm sure there's plenty out there. I realize it's going to take dedication on some Wikipedian's part, but with some work this could be a useful article (barring anything similar already existing). freshacconci talktalk 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least userfy. It's not really original research since there are actual facts about how gramophone records were produced. Not much room for interpretation or insertion of the author's own ideas and such. Also, I would accept in good faith that there are print sources that show the notability of this subject. I wouldn't expect that there would be many sources online that would be deemed acceptable. SMSpivey (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undoubtedly a notable topic for which references could be found. Therefore it is practical for it to be fixed by editing, hence should not be deleted per WP:DELETION. JulesH (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , expand and source. We improve Wikipedia by improving articles like this, not removing them. DGG (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic article which needs to be sourced. Sources must exist with which to improve this.--Michig (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and encyclopedic; only needs to be sourced¨¨ victor falk 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It goes perfectly well with WP:N. All it needs is a few more references.
Snow keep. Notable, sourceable and simply needs TLC. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 1 February 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.