Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presence (amplification)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Presence (amplification)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Orphaned one sentence article with no references. Would suggest merger but there is nothing here to really merge, that already exists on the Amplifier article. Content duplication/fork. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like more of a wiktionary entry. Belasted (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does have potential, but I wish someone who knew more about the subject would add something. Belasted (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already on the amplifier article? There's no occurrence of the word "presence" anywhere in the whole of amplifier right now.  It doesn't occur in electronic amplifier  So what is a reader, whose amplifier has these mysterious "loudness" and "presence" controls, and who comes to Wikipedia wanting to learn what these things are, to do?  Indeed, what is a reader reading about mysterious "depth" and "presence" controls at ENGL to do?  You're suggesting deleting the only information that we currently have on the subject. And you're not doing so because there is no verifiable information to be had, and the article is unexpandable, which would be reasons in accord with deletion policy, but only because the article doesn't currently cite sources and hasn't yet been expanded, neither of which is a policy-based rationale for deletion.  Please read our Deletion policy and our Editing policy.  See also User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage.  You are supposed to look for sources yourself when you see a stub, and try to expand it, and only reach for deletion nomination if you cannot find any sources, and cannot find any means of refactoring the article.  Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that they simply aren't cited. And sources definitely do exist for this.  They aren't even hard to find.  ISBN 9780793537334 page 223 documents two different types of presence control, for starters.  And there are even a fair few in-depth sources on the WWW, including manufacturers' technical bulletins such as this one. There's no reason that a presence control, its theory, its operation, and its circuitry, cannot be written about, from sources, to the extent that a squelch control is.  Please do the homework of looking for sources yourself beforehand, before you reach for deletion nomination templates.  This is clearly a stub, as many articles are, with scope for expansion.  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "There's no occurrence of the word "presence" anywhere in the whole of amplifier right now." That's because since I nominated this article someone deleted the entry, see, citing no sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is really a definition violating WP:NOT. -- Storm  Rider  17:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOTDICTIONARY. JamesBurns (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep See and other references in reliable and independent sources which have significant coverage of the "Presence" filter in audio amplifiers.  This filter makes the source seem to be physically closer to the microphone. Edison (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wish people would stop using Google Books as reference. Not every page is accessable to everyone. Right now all I see is a blank page with a warning message at the top telling me the page is unavailable as I've reached the limits of the book. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment' Google Book search, like Google News archive, is a fine way to allow others to see that a claimed reference exists. Most people can see a text or at least the summary from the search and a snippet view. The book is "Sound Recording Practice" By John Borwick, Association of Professional Recording Services, Edition: 4, illustrated, revised, Published by Oxford University Press, 1994, ISBN 0198166087, 9780198166085. On page 150, it talks about equalizers, and says a "midrange lift or cut" at various frequencies from 500 Hz to 6kHz is called a "presence" control, and it makes the affected signal stand out, as if the performer were close to the microphone. This mimics the effect of a speaker/performer being "on mic" or "off mic" which dates back to the earliest days of recording and broadcasting with electronic microphones.   Sorry you can't look at the results from Google books. It is a great aid in providing online reliable sources.  I look at lots of them and have not experience the blocking you report.   Google books will also tell you the nearest libraries to you which have the book in their holdings. Besides this book, I have seen many books on stereo and high fidelity published since about 1955 which refer to a "presence" control, and I have seen it on many stereo amplifiers. An earlier ref is Audio engineering, 1954, v 38 where the "presence control" is discussed on pages 23, 25, and 31. Stereo Review, 1959, pages 36, 42 and 54 says that some amps and preamps then had a "presence control or switch. Designing audio circuits" by Sontheimer, 1998 page 106 says that  "many mixing consoles and amplifiers have a dedicated presence control"  and describes the circuitry then used for it. High Fidelity  magazine, 1958, page 92 notes that the Fisher company had used a "presence control" starting that year. "Ultimate bench warrior" by Jackson, 2008 page 75 discusses "the presence control which accentuates the upper mid range which is where the guitar and human voice both 'live'."  "High Fidelity" by Briggs and Cooke, 1956 page 46 describes the "presence control" as a knob on an amplifier which controls a resonant filter. Audiocraft for the hi-fi hobbyist, v 1, 1955 p 15 says the "presence control' is a new feature found on preamplifiers. Looks like lots of reliable sources discuss this gimmick found on guitar amplifiers and high fidelity amplifiers and preamps from the mid 1950's to the present. I personally see it as an "anti-high fidelity" gimmick, but it seems notable. If you want to sound like you are close to the mic, then by all means get close to the mic. Beyond a "how to" or a dictionary definition. Many more sources only in snippet view, but a college or large public library would have sources to expand the article.  Edison (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. Plenty of scope & sources for an article on this topic, so this is a valid stub as it stands. JulesH (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, dictionary definition. Suggest moving it to wiktionary. TheClashFan (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear cut case of WP:DICDEF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for those claiming this should be deleted as a dictionary definition: how do you distinguish between a definition and a stub? According to the guideline WP:STUB, a stub may consist of just a definition (but shouldn't be on a topic where there is no information to add other than a definition), so what is wrong with this one only having a definition? JulesH (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is generally material to add beyond a definition for common nouns representing things with demonstrable real world existence. One does not have to add it immediately, and there is no deadline.     DGG (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a valid term and has scope beyond a dictionary definition. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G., DGG and Stifle, they seem to sum it up fine. -- Banj e  b oi   00:49, 7 March 2009 (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.