Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland JD-990

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus that all of these articles should not be considered as a single group, and for at least some of them reliable sources conveying notability do exist. This result does not preclude renomination of individual articles that do not have such sourcing in the future. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roland JD-990

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Roland JD-990 (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)

I'm nominating several articles about Roland synthesisers for deletion. This is because:

  • they fail WP:PRODUCT, which says: If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy ... Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.
  • they consist almost entirely of original research, with few (if any) good sources
  • they are largely untouched, and many have had "more sources needed" tags for years
  • Googling these products doesn't throw up better sources

I haven't necessarily nominated all of them... just the low-hanging fruit so far.

Articles nominated for deletion:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perhaps some of these models should be deleted, but I think it is excessive to nominate all of them. Some of these models have prominent status in the music world, and the majority are well-written and referenced. I am not sure if WP:PRODUCT can be easily applied to something like instruments, since they are so often referenced and publicized by bands and musicians. I appreciate the intention but I think it's too broad. Skirts89 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am actually outraged that you would suggest deleting all these. I am a musician hobbyist and know most of these synths. I owned JD-800 the keyword version of JD-990. The JD-990 is one of the most powerful rack mounts ever made and has a huge fan base in the Synth world. The Roland System 100/100m/700 are one of the first modular synths ever made and very power, also has a huge fan base. Also excellent synths: Alpha Juno (I own the rack version MKS50), JP8000, D-70, JX and SH stuff (I used to own SH-1000), etc. I can go on and on about many of these. If you have specific issue with a specific page, please only nominate those pages and raise your issues. Perhaps a few similar synths can be bundled, but if so, you need to suggest that. Finally, the biggest argument is that many of these synths are very notable, maybe not notable to the general public, but there is a huge community of synthesist that have interest in these and search online for info about them, so Wiki should have these info. Regarding your WP:PRODUCT argument, Roland have hundreds of products and it would not be easy to add all in one page, so their products should have their own pages. I will see if I can improve any of them and add more references. I did notice that the JD-990 had only one reference, so I will try to add more. Peter303x (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 20241227104738[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, as others have pointed out, an absurd amount of articles in the batch nomination to decipher which of the articles are worthy of inclusion. With that the nom is simply not familiar with electronic music gear and the significance these instruments played in the music industry. Lots of these are before the internet age so it’s not exactly ingenuous to target these just because there’s limited current web coverage. But even still many of these are historic and have had significant coverage that can be found on the net easily today. For example, for the R8 the British classic print magazine Music Technology did an extensive contemporary review on it. [1] - not to mention also the R8 MKII a few years later [2] The SH-1000, System 100 and 100M, D-70, JD-800, JD-990, VK-7, JP-8000, R8 and the R5 are featured significantly in the Sound on Sound article “History of Roland” with many of these like the SH-1000 termed as “milestones.” The JD-990 is written there as it was “Roland's best sample-and-synthesis sound module ever in 1993”. [3][4][5][6]. These all have too much topic-specific content to be merged into the Roland page.Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that the nom is simply not familiar with electronic music gear and the significance these instruments played in the music industry You're talking to the guy who wrote the TR-808 FA.
I am familiar with the Sound on Sound history of Roland series and used it extensively in the TR-808 page. Yes, it covers many (perhaps all?) of the articles I've nominated here, but doesn't provide enough content to create much more than a stub for each article. The same stuff, instead, could be merged into a really good single article about Roland synthesisers.
All that said, clearly this was an ambitious nom, so if and when it fails I will see about other approaches. It would be great if some of the "outraged" gearheads who oppose the deletions could help out, because I'm the only editor I regularly see doing heavy lifting on articles about electronic music gear. They are in an appalling state. They consist almost entirely of original research, excess technical detail, next to no sourcing, and little demonstration of notability. And these articles have sat untouched, unimproved and unthreatened for years. They rot and rot and rot. Popcornduff (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you that you did a ton of work on the TR-808 page. But it's funny you said you used the Sound on Sound history of Roland series "extensively" but then say "but doesn't provide enough content to create much more than a stub." Which is it? Anyway, much more extensive coverage found below. Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used the series extensively on the 808 page... along with ten billion other sources. Popcornduff (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Maybe this isn't the right place for this next thought - feel free to tell me to move it somewhere better, if you can think of one.)
This has got me thinking about what constitutes notability for musical equipment in the first place. We don't seem to have, for example, individual articles for every effect pedal - even though there are numerous reviews from reliable sources (as per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE) to be found of them. For example, here's a recent Guitar World review of new Boss pedals, and here's a recent Guitar Player review of a new Gretsch guitar. Should these have articles? Is this consistent with how we write about synthesisers and drum machines? Popcornduff (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do believe many guitar pedals are notable enough for their own page, yet they don't have them. I would love to see more of them since many have an extensive history in music. Skirts89 07:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many are notable and could have good pages made of them. But what is the criteria? Would those examples I just linked meet the criteria for notability? If not, why would many of the articles I link above? Seriously, is just "it was reviewed in a magazine" sufficient? (Perhaps it is?) Popcornduff (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps getting very meta, but some of the details and minutia in WP instrument pages are what makes it so valuable and insightful. Yes, it's a lot of detail, and yes it sometimes pushes the edge of notability, but as long as an article isn't a COI or too promotional (and it usually isn't with instruments) then I find the info interesting and useful. Sure, maybe a boutique pedal doesn't need a page, but anything from BOSS or Roland or Dunlop probably qualifies. Most car/truck models have a page of their own, for example. Same with cell phones. Skirts89 17:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources - In addition to the above, further extensive print coverage from Music Technology, MusicRadar, Electronic Soundmaker & Computer Music, Sound on Sound and Electronics & Music Maker of the D-70 [7][8], JD-990 [9], JX-8P [10][11], JX-10 [12][13], U-20 [14][[15], GR-500[16], R-5 [17], V-Synth [18][19], JP-8000 [20]], SH-201 [21][22], HandSonic [23] and System 100 [24].Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the JD-990, as it now passes WP:GNG. That is from full articles in more than one magazine, which are reliable secondary sources, used as references or further reading. Future Music might also be added, at some point. I'm fairly certain that at least one of the first hundred UK issues did cover it, either in the magazine or in a supplementary book. I'm not willing to discuss the other articles in this thread; they haven't been nominated independently of the JD-990, and are not part of an entire category to be deleted. EP111 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Future Music issue 61, October 1997, has an article on The Prodigy. This is likely to contain some mention of it, as Liam Howlett used the JD-990 extensively. Mention of a Faithless interview in FM (January 1998 issue?) also describes the "Insomnia" pizzicato as being from a JD-990, which is also mentioned in the "Sustain Pain" answer in FM, p.105, May 1998. EP111 (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, OK, this nom was definitely a stretch. It was a big ask for editors to examine a big list of articles, and I appreciate the efforts that Oakshade and others have gone to to provide additional sources, especially ones that aren't necessarily straightforward to find. Assuming everyone is happy to keep these articles for now, I'll start examining these articles individually in more depth, and individually re-nominate anything I can't find good sources for. Popcornduff (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating anything, please check the SOS archive for any offline articles. This covers quite a big gap of articles which aren't visible on the web, between about 1988-1995. For then-new equipment, Future Music can be assumed to have parallel offline articles, around the same points in time, from 1992 onwards. Future Music has a fairly big collection of back issues at archive.org, though I'm not sure as to the copyright status. Back issues of FM also can be found on eBay, and frequently have a photo of the contents page. There were also quite a lot of equipment reviews in a free magazine called Making Music (the UK version at muzines, not the US version), which was published from perhaps 1985 until at least 1998. EP111 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to thank you User:Popcornduff for a rational discussion (pretty rare on WP these days!) and also for your ongoing contributions to the subject! More than happy to help with any articles you find lacking. Skirts89 09:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comments Last week I added more sources to JD-990 page and added section on notable users. I see that someone else also expanded on this after me. Peter303x (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 20241227104738[reply]
  • Keep I am not sharing my reasons Lubbad85 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many of these products, such as the Roland Alpha Juno, have their own identities and histories that warrant their own article. To merge all this content into the main Roland article would make it unwieldy and harder to find information -Taras (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with user Taras. Putting these products on the manufacturer page would make it huge and violate Wikipedia policies on length. For musicians thinking of buying vintage instruments, these pages are indispensible. Also for music researchers and understanding music history. These products are important and notable historically. For example, theIbanez Tube Screamer pedal is a really notable product and step in music history. I am an advocate for a huge Wikipedia with articles on everything. For me, that is what I expect Wikipedia to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reinforcements are hardly needed here, surely? Can we close it as WP:SNOWBALL already? Popcornduff (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roland_JD-990&oldid=890014023"