Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapete


 * 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. Feel free to discuss mergers, if of interest, via the merge process on talk pages. TY! Missvain (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tapete

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Zero in-depth coverage that I could find. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Royal National Institute of Blind People and add this to that part of the article; not really notable on its own but definitely a good point to bring up there.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the above point. Balle010 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth noting to unfamiliar editors: this likely got an article in the first place because of YouTuber Techmoan, whose specialty is obscure audio formats. Raymie (t • c) 06:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this article has difficulties with the conventional notability policy as it was a niche device that was discontinued just before internet sources would have been readily available. But as a pioneering audiobook device for a minority group it should be covered per WP:CSB. The Ferrograph museum and Techmoan videos are the two best sources of information, and the various museum pages bring the article up to WP:THREE sources. 213.205.198.132 (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I was able to locate three mentions of the RNIB tape library and the Tapete format in late 1960s UK trade publications. There seems to be enough here to pass the WP:GNG, especially given the above CSB concerns. Raymie (t • c) 20:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI, until a few days ago this title was a longstanding redirect to Tapete Records, which is a relatively obscure music company but with quite a number of wikilinks. There was then a brief edit war around whether to convert it to an article or keep as a redirect.  For some reason an RfD concerning this was speedily closed and the redirect converted to the article you see by the closer.  Incoming wikilinks for the record company have been cleaned up, but as yet the audio format is an orphan.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is relevant, but at the time of the RfD close, the page had only one incoming mainspace link . – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - a number of sources have been added since this was nominated. The format seems to have attracted enough coverage to pass GNG (although mostly in niche publications). Spicy (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and trim to Royal National Institute of Blind People, sources do not merit a stand alone article.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - A well-sourced and supported encyclopedia article. I very much agree with the notability note above. If not Keep, Merge as a section under accessibility in the article Royal National Institute of Blind People. But I really do like the details and the research behind this piece.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2020 (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.