Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern didgeridoo designs


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Procedural close (NAC) per nominator's withdrawal statement below nomination. — Becksguy (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern didgeridoo designs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completely superfluous page. What little is of value (very little I may add) can be safely transferred to the article on didgeridoo after this laughable attempt at "information" is deleted. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always a problem when you are in the middle of doing something and someone comes along and thinks that's it. I was in the middle of a process when you came along with an AfD tag. Have another look at the Didgeridoo article and discussion page, and then look at the Modern didgeridoo designs article. You will get where I am going with this. The modern didgeridoo innovation section in the previous Didgeridoo article has now been merged into the Modern didgeridoo design article. Musicologists (Wade-Matthews, M., Thompson, W., The Encyclopedia of Music, 2004, pp184-185. ISBN 0 760 76243 0) consider authentic didgeridoos to be made from Eucalyptus logs hollowed out by termites. It's recognized that these modern didgeridoos are quite distinct from traditional didgeridoos, and we should reflect that distinction in our articles. As much as a Cornu is distinct from a French Horn. John Moss (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was started less than 20 hours before being sent to AfD and looked like this when tagged. It had references and was about half the size it is now. The references appear to be high quality ones. I strongly support the author's assertion that he was developing the article, and I ask that the nominator consider rescinding his nomination based on the state the article is in now. — Becksguy (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article has potential, give it a chance. There are good reasons to separate this topic from the article about traditional didgeridoos, as discussed at Talk:didgeridoo. Graham 87 15:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a premature nom for an article with potential. It has sources, and, it was created as a result of these three AfDs I just closed yesterday: Articles for deletion/Didgebox, Articles for deletion/Spiral didgeridoo, and Articles for deletion/Travel didgeridoo. Please also read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Spiral didgeridoo in why these didgeridoos are different from traditional ones and should have their own article.  — fetch ·  comms   19:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you everybody for input. I'm just going to keep chasing references to build this article up. I think consolidating the modern didgeridoos into one article is a neat and technical solution. There is a plethora of didgeridoo innovations, but I agree that we need the reliable reference material to support their inclusion in Wiki. The sliding didgeridoos and travel didgeridoos now have adequate reliable third party references for inclusion, but I'll have to chase references for other types that I picked up from the merger from the main didgeridoo article or delete their inclusion in this article. So it's turning out to be much tighter referencing. If anyone wants to help please don't hold back. All good. Thank you once again! John Moss (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2010 (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.