Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analog sound vs. digital sound

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog sound vs. digital sound[edit]

Unencyclopedic content and writing, delete--Peta 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Comparison of analog and digital sound and rewrite to be more encyclopedic Ydam 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion; undecided on other possible changes. Atlant 12:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Ydam. Needs work to cite sources, but the analog vs. digital debate is very significant and should be covered. Aguerriero (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with Ydam and Aguirriero. Professional sources (notably JAES) have discussed this at great length. Trade magazines (notably Stereophile, and possibly The Audio Critic) have discussed this at great length. Both are usable as sources and not exceptionally hard to get a hold of. --Rtollert 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ILove Plankton ⁽ ^L⁾ 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not too well written, but it's definitely salvageable and a noteworthy topic. Also, move per Ydam. Grand master ka 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per other comments. --Angelstorm 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legitimate topic but delete most of the current content as unsourced. Some of it is silly and just plain wrong: "Was it ever entirely analog or digital?" Yes, of course. Pulse-code modulation, the earliest form of digital sound encoding, did not exist before 1937 so all recordings made before 1937 are "entirely" analog. More to the point, no digital technology was used in ordinary commercial recordings (stereo LPs), before the introduction of Soundstream's digital tape recorder, circa 1975. Your ordinary Beatles LP was "entirely analog." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it requires some major cleanup, more scientific/sourcable facts and a clearer definition of what is compared to what. The sound you hear is entirely analog of course, the medium and reproduction methods may be analog or digital, and the article should focus mainly on whether one is really better than the other at conveying information, or , in this case, sound, and mention all traceable/objective pros and cons of each medium e.g. most analog media tend to be subject to playback wear, while most digital ones do not. EpiVictor 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MSTCrow 19:13, 4 June 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.