Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrafile


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Quadrafile

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost certain GNG fail. The article has been unsourced throughout its existence (approx nine years) and has been tagged as a potential GNG fail for over seven of those years. A cursory Google search returned only 600 results, with most of them being duplicates of the Wikipedia article.  G R '' (Contact me) (See my edits) 13:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: the only in-depth coverage that imparts useful information is this which isn't sufficient to pass the general notability guideline.   Dr Strauss   talk   14:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: the sources brought up by other users are promising and the depth of the coverage shows historical relevance.   Dr Strauss   talk   22:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Deeply reluctant delete. This sort of thing is exactly the kind of history esoterica I love to discover on Wikipedia. Sadly, it does not seem to meet the bar of the GNG. Google Books suggests that the record gets mentioned with some regularity in Hi-Fi News and Record Review  but that appears to be it. I sincerely hope that some hi-fi enthusiast shows up with an armload of good sources from the 1970s that haven't been digitized because I would love to change my position here.  A  Train talk 15:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * perhaps it could be mentioned in Quadraphonic sound? At least then it will be a useful redlink.    Dr Strauss   talk   16:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very good idea!  A  Train talk 19:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article fails to meet GNG. It lacks sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable sources.desmay (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's a secondary source in detail on the history:
 * Although Michael Thorne, creator of Quadrafile, was editor of this magazine at the time Quadrafile was created, he was no longer associated with the magazine at the time this article was written and published.
 * The Music Educators Journal also thought Quadrafile worthy of a paragraph on page 24 of an article on useful resources for music professionals (not open access, unfortunately, but on JSTOR):
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Syrenka V, and given that for a pre-internet topic like quadraphonic sound, sources are not likely to present themselves readily in free full-text searches.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu  Talk To Me  12:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep:' Meets GNG, per above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I will be adding sources I have found. But over and above that, this was a unique watershed in Quadrophonic history.  Appeared at the apogee of the technology, even as it was about to become obsolete and overlooked, like Betamax.  But it was an audio and electronic milestone nonetheless.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update on sources: I've added another source. Quadrafile is included in the Pink Floyd Archives because they're on one of the tracks on each side:
 * When I first saw this, I thought the Pink Floyd Archives couldn't be used because they are self-published, but it turns out that Vernon Fitch is a published expert on Pink Floyd. The Wikipedia article on Pink Floyd cites three books he authored, only one of which is itself self-published—and, no, the publisher of the other two books (Collector's Guide Publishing) is not a vanity press. So his self-published archive should count as the work of an expert, and thus admissible as a reliable source by the standards of WP:V and WP:RS.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (changed !vote). Outstanding detective work, .  A  Train talk 20:21, 16 October 2017 (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.