Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ambisonic Source Texts


 * 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 delete. Unopposed.  Sandstein  07:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Ambisonic Source Texts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously prodded, but rejected because "someone spent a lot of work on this". Doesn't address the question of notability. None of the source texts seem to be a notable work in its own right, and "ambisonic source texts" is hardly a topic that has received much attention as a group. While we have some bibliographies for very notable, large subjects, we normally don't have separate bibliographies for the majority of subjects. (If kept, the article needs to be moved to "List of Ambisonic source texts", but that can wait until after the AfD) Fram (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I'm personally not a strong advocate for the bibliographies of even large topics, but there's especially little to justify such a list for a specific implementation of surround sound; functionally, relevant material in these sources should be used to improve the parent article and cited therein (if not already). Sources that don't contribute to referencing can be ignored, or, if they are for some other reason particularly notable, included as further reading. But not as a stand-alone list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 18:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.