Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soundscape Digital Technology

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 merge‎ to Soundscape R.Ed. This was a toss-up between No consensus and a Merge. Ordinarily, I'd relist a discussion with this level of participation but it's already been relisted three times so that is not an option. If you believe some content should be Merged to additional articles, I say feel free to take that on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundscape Digital Technology

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article for 15 years, an excessively detailed history of a sound/recording technology company. I can find a couple of 1990s articles online in a specialist magazine, but this wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:NCORP these days. Time for this article to go? Sionk (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Technology, Computing, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXISTS. Ordinarily I prefer to add links to ill-sourced articles that are up for deletion before voting, but there's a disconnect here between the sourcing and the article itself. This article is about two things, the SSHDR1 and the company.
The history stuff is unsourced (maybe scraped from somewhere, copyvio style, no obvious candidates) and probably would need to rely on primary sources. It seems a shame to lose all this information if it can be sourced. Mackie has published a number of press releases and company announcements (it's a listed company) which could help for verifiability.
For notability, I think the extensive coverage of products over more than a decade would suffice. Here are a series of sources, there are more:
- Sound on Sound profile of Soundscape R.Ed [1]
- 1993 Music Technology Article on HDR system [2]
- Audio Media magazine review of R.Ed (a reprint provided by the company but appears to be an independent review)[3]
- Sound on Sound 1995 article with a few sentences on Soundscape systems [4]
- Sound on Sound April 2006 review (post-Mackie) [5]
- Making music with digital audio : direct to disk recording on the PC, book has multiple instances discussing Soundscape products [6]
I would note that these were easily found, suggesting the nomination would have benefited from a better WP:BEFORE exercise. Sound on Sound is a specialty magazine, but its not a minor publication, and there are others.

There are also two potential merge targets Soundscape_R.Ed and Soundscape SSHDR1 both of which are poorly sourced but several of these sources extensively discuss those products and would help save them from deletion. I'd be happy to see the three merged. Oblivy (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Soundscape_R.Ed as ATD. Since there are already pages for the products, a merge is the best solution all round. In order to meet GNG/NCORP guidelines for an article about the company, we require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. As per GNG/WP:NCORP which are the appropriate guidelines for both companies and for products, there is very little information available on the company but extensive reviews on the products. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 2 January 2024 (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.