- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Quintephone
- Quintephone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is part of an esoteric and nonstandard scheme of musical instrument classification proposed by Steve Mann ( User:Glogger, who created this article), in which musical instruments are grouped based on the classical elements. The term "quintephone" has almost never been used outside of publications by Mann and his colleagues, and in web sites and books which copied from this article; in fact, the article notes that "the classification has still not been debated in organological studies". In short, it's a neologism with a longstanding Wikipedia article. Zetawoof ( ζ) 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence for notability. Also, no evidence that the name "quintephone" is commonly accepted. OtterAM ( talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there's nothing from my searches and the overall article still questions the actual needed independent notability, therefore nothing convincing leads to delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 27 May 2016 (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.
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Quintephone
- Quintephone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is part of an esoteric and nonstandard scheme of musical instrument classification proposed by Steve Mann ( User:Glogger, who created this article), in which musical instruments are grouped based on the classical elements. The term "quintephone" has almost never been used outside of publications by Mann and his colleagues, and in web sites and books which copied from this article; in fact, the article notes that "the classification has still not been debated in organological studies". In short, it's a neologism with a longstanding Wikipedia article. Zetawoof ( ζ) 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence for notability. Also, no evidence that the name "quintephone" is commonly accepted. OtterAM ( talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there's nothing from my searches and the overall article still questions the actual needed independent notability, therefore nothing convincing leads to delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 27 May 2016 (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.