Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moog records

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 of the debate was Merge and redirect to Robert Moog. Deathphoenix 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moog records[edit]

Delete as nonsense, unverifiable, original research. Neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Moog records. -- Krash (Talk) 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved relevant text to Robert Moog and I hope interested editors will have a look. I continue to contend that "Moog records" is a protologism. In an attempt to reach consensus, I suggest and support merge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Robert Moog. This type of record does exist, and is mentioned in historical interviews with Robert Moog. Doubtful there is enough info for it to be its own article, thus the merge. pschemp | talk 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know there's a lot of vinyl with "Moog" in their titles. But there is no "Moog records" genre, thus making this original research. And why clutter Robert Moog's biography article with this stuff that has very little to do with him? -- Krash (Talk) 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "Moog synth in culture" section of Robert Moog. Definitely not nonsense; I've heard of these records (though I'm not sure if it could be called a "genre.") OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the whole article needs to be merged into Robert Moog, but it's worthy of mention (a sentence of two) that the Moog inspired these types of albums for a short period of time. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 70's kitsch, like mood rings and pet rocks --Ruby 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kitch has never been a criterion for keeping an article. -- Krash (Talk) 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a minor fad that didn't last very long. Any needed mention of it should go to Robert Moog. My own recollection is of a bunch of "Switched on" titles ("Switched on Bach," "Switched on Santa") that were in the record store remainder bins within a year or so. Fan1967 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per Krash. Better off as a paragraph in the Moog article than a separate article. Fan1967 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I'll change my vote if someone can verify that several professional music critics/papers have used this term to refer to the genre. — ciphergoth 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Moog Cookbook because anyone who can make Green Day's Basket Case sound like the St. Elsewhere theme song and uses a Speak & Spell as an instrument is OK in my book. Plus, it's conceivable that someone could come here looking for their discography and type Moog records.--Isotope23 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I interest you in this slightly used copy of Genetic Engineering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Definitely not, but a redirect to Robert Moog seems sensible. — ciphergoth 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect to Andy Moog. I'm sure he holds a few records for goaltending...--Isotope23 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, worthwhile content has already been merged. Someone can leave a redirect here to Robert Moog if they are so inclined.--Isotope23 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I can't definitely recall having heard the term before, but a quick Google found several references: [1] [2] [3] [4]... so it seems to me that it's the kind of thing someone might want to find out more about, and thus deserves an entry. --Woozle 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RS? -- Krash (Talk) 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even the Google hits for "Moog records" - which is surely a biased sample - yields pages which seem to use the term interchangeably with "Moog music", "Moog albums" and many other near-synonyms. From which I conclude that this exact term isn't widely used. Contrast with a term like "synthpop" which is far more widespread than any near variant. — ciphergoth 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of countless, tiny, fads. Such as popular songs played by orchestras, accordions (or other ethnic/niche instruments), classical songs with ocean sounds, etc, etc. Crap you see in the bargain bin. A mention in the Robert Moog article is all this really needs. --fataltourist 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into "Moog synth in culture" section of Robert Moog. More noteworthy than most musical fads, disagreeing with Fataltourist. I would vote "keep" if there were sources more authoritative than those shown so far. Barno 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge and redirect per Barno --Mmeinhart 05:29, 28 February 2006 (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/Moog_records&oldid=1146621465"