Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland System-100

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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roland System-100

This article is a clear, biased advertisement of a product. It is not even remotely significant, every piece of equipment ever used by professionals is not significant. If so, almost every synth would have to be included on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic, and has never been throughly cleaned-up Scapler 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roland Corporation. Blatant advertising, but a legitimate search term for a notable synthesizer manufacturer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The corporation is notable, but this particular product is really not. If it is relevant and noteworthy, than almost any product made by any company can have its own article. Just my two cents. Scapler (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not blatant advertising when the product isn't even sold anymore. It hasn't been on the market for almost 30 years, in fact! The article, though extensive, isn't really written from an encyclopedic point of view, but from a vintage synth fan's point of view; it thus doesn't really do a good job of explaining to the non-enthusiast what was genuinely significant about this product. There's the bones of a good article in there, though, and there's plenty of information out there to make it that. This was a synth used by a fair number of well-known musicians and a better treatment of that would help make it a useful Wikipedia article. Parenthetically, I note Wikipedians often stating that something's 'advertising' when it's really not - it's just written from a enthusiast point of view. We should stop using 'advertising' for that - it's an assumption of bad faith and justifiably irritates people who just don't know Wikipedia's house style yet and who were honestly trying to write a good article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per morven; a synth that has been used extensively is a notable instrument. There is lots of precedent with individual pieces of equipment getting their own articles, whether synthesizers or computer chips. The article needs cleanup; but I agree it's not deliberate advertising. -- phoebe / (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, this is a late analog synthesizer that can be heard today on tracks produced by Depeche Mode, Human League and Erasure. The legendary Tangerine Dream used a System 100 on their 1978 album, Cyclone [1]. Why would we want to delete the article? There are some issues with the "hobbyist" tone of the piece, but those are not to be solved by deletion. Keep and improve. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 3 June 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.