Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home audio

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. Keep voters didn't have one policy based reason Secret ^account 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home audio

Not very useful, no references, seems to be largely covered by Home cinema. [roux » x] 05:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. With all due respect, is this a pointy nomination of some sort? I'd imagine the folks over at the HydrogenAudio forums would love to have a word with you here - as would anybody who's ever paid a ridiculous amount for those perfect, make-your-teeth-rattle speakers. The article is a stub - and not a very well-written one - but yes, despite the degenerate state of mass-market music, home audio is a notable avenue of research, completely independant from movie watching. Badger Drink (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. what point would I be trying to make, other than 'I don't believe this article is useful, it cites no sources, and I feel this information is largely covered by Home cinema'? Please AGF, ok? [roux » x] 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"With all due respect . . .". Back in the day, (when the albums were actually worth listening to), people would invest a retarded amount of money in getting the perfect turntable, the perfect amplifier, the perfect speakers - in short, the perfect "rig". That there exists a lot of crossover between the home audio and the home theater markets is entirely irrelevant - there's plenty of crossover between Karl Marx and communism, as well. The article, in its current state, sucks, yes - but it's a start, and it is in not such an absolute, unsalvagable state of sucktitude that there exists any purpose in starting over from scratch. Badger Drink (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of making a pointy deletion is pretty clearly not assuming good faith on my part. An apology would be nice. [roux » x] 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding an apology is a sure-fire way to ensure you won't receive one. Methinks thou art a wee bit too sensitive. Badger Drink (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a demand. You were rude; an apology for being so would be nice. [roux » x] 07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly may be. On the other hand, throwing out apologies when I feel they are unwarranted would cheapen those apologies which are warranted - and, hence, not be so nice for me. Badger Drink (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that this article is likely to cover anything that wouldn't be better covered by High fidelity, although if a case can be made for this being a distinct topic, I would support keeping it. It needs more content, however, before that's justified.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing the idea "out there", so to speak, but what are your thoughts (and/or anybody else's thoughts, of course) towards a move of high fidelity to home audio - the former being the goal (perhaps the obsession) of - and therefore merely a component of - the latter? I'm aware that this isn't WP:RFPM - just testing the waters. Badger Drink (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's almost impossible to distinguish between high fidelity and other audio, as manufacturers/retailers will describe any old junk as "hi-fi", so separating high fidelity from other audio may not have much mileage, but then again, hi-fi could refer to in-car audio or even personal audio (walkman, iPod, etc.), so "home audio" maybe wouldn't be the best place for it. Summary: undecided on that one.--Michig (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated as superfluous. Also this jargon appears to be a neologism derived from home video/home cinema whereas high fidelity is long a still used term.Synchronism (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: useless stub. It appears to be a neologism derived from 'home cinema'. Proponents have failed to demonstrate how this is a notable class of domestic equipment when hi-fi is the most widely used terminology by a long way. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above, I agree completely.OneHappyHusky (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not useless, because it can be greatly expanded. To think that its covered by home cinema is a little narrow & ahistoric. there is a substantial differentiation from high fidelity--i think this term is used more for multi room setups and the like, but this can be discussed as it gets worked on.
Merge hi-fi to this article, re-direct hi-fi here, and expand article. Very limited in its current state, but the topic I believe deserves an article. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at very least Merge per Theseeker4. Home audio is certainly a notable topic; while home theatre/cinema/whatnot is much more prominent now, there is still a long history where the point of the system was the audio, without any visual part to it. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2008 (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.