Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Didgebox
- 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 no consensus. Creator agrees to a merger proposal; no other !votes present. Merger can be dealt with on the talk pages or just the author doing it himself. —fetch·comms 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didgebox[edit]
- Didgebox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability shown for this product. Sourced by stores and a manufacturers website. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to didgeridoo. Article states it's a modern version of it. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- would have considered redirecting there as it is mentioned in that article but after experience with articles creator after doing that with Spiral didgeridoo where my edit was called vandalism I'm sure that doing so would have met with a similar reaction. (and nothing is sourced by independent sources) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation of modern didgeridoo designs into one article[edit]
The issue with the modern didgeridoo designs - including didgebox - is that they don't fit into the traditional didgeridoo category, and if there is going to be an expansion in the description of modern didgeridoo designs on wiki, it's better that this happens under a separate article heading, because it will otherwise clutter the existing didgeridoo article. Also, these modern didgeridoo developments are not true didgeridoos, and it's arguable that they shouldn't be included to any great extent under the current didgeridoo article. To represent these distinct musical instrument innovations, I propose that the compromise solution is to have a separate article covering modern didgeridoo designs under the one heading. This would include slidedidge, didgebox, spiral didgeridoo, etc.. CheersJohn Moss (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the didgebox article, I'm ok with the article being deleted, on the basis that there is a consensus that a broader article on modern didgeridoo innovations is an appropriate solution - not just for didgebox, but also for the other modern didge designs, including spiral didgeridoo and travel didgeridoo, which are also up for deletion. Collectively, there shouldn't be any argument on the notablility of modern didgeridoo innovations. It would be nice to have some feedback and consensus on this. I appreciate constructive collaboration. John Moss (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of notability for modern didgeridoo innovations. There is a major lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P 95, Illustrated Encyclopedia Musical Instruments, Wade-Mathews,M., 2003: "McMahon has also played the didgeridoo with London Philharmonic Orchestra, and invented an instrument that he calls the "didgeribone". As its name suggests, it is a cross between a didgeridoo and a trombone, and consists of two wooden tubes placed one inside the other." That's a modern didgeridoo innovation citing in encyclopedic document.John Moss (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of notability for modern didgeridoo innovations. There is a major lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the didgebox article, I'm ok with the article being deleted, on the basis that there is a consensus that a broader article on modern didgeridoo innovations is an appropriate solution - not just for didgebox, but also for the other modern didge designs, including spiral didgeridoo and travel didgeridoo, which are also up for deletion. Collectively, there shouldn't be any argument on the notablility of modern didgeridoo innovations. It would be nice to have some feedback and consensus on this. I appreciate constructive collaboration. John Moss (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2010 (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.