Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbolic Sound Corporation


 * 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

Speedy keep

Symbolic Sound Corporation
Doesn't fit with WP:N Wafulz 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I found this article just today and saw that its importance was being questioned. Today I began adding historical facts and references to articles and books related to this topic.

I hope I have an opportunity to finish this editing.

Seth Laphage 23:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the current appearance of the page, it's non-notable - and should be deleted. BigHaz 23:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have also nominated Kyma (sound design language) because it only applies to the initial article. Wafulz 23:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "symbolic sound corporation" has 790 hits on Google, including numerous articles from various music news websites. --Thorne N. Melcher 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, would we just merge Kyma into it? I didn't find anything showing its relevance to anything other than SSC Wafulz 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "kyma sound design language" has 10300 hits on Google --Seth Laphage 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep. I've done some more research into it and these two articles seem pretty distinct as a (flagship?) product and its company. I guess we could also use Waterloo Maple and Maple (software) for the sake of comparison. However, I think we should also mention some of the users of Kyma on SSC's page to ensure relevance. --Wafulz 00:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - though I'm not entirely sure notability is established here, the nominating editor has voted to keep, which I'll read as a withdrawal of the nomination. -- H·G (words/works) 07:30, 2 August 2006 (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.