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.
Delete I just quickly went through the sources cited and did some searching online. While trade publications have lots to say about Steinberg's products they have almost nothing to say about the company itself. The company itself just isn't notable.
Lovelylinda1980 (
talk)
15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Yamaha Corporation with a small merge of information.
glassdoor.co.uk Has the company turnover down between "$10 to $25 million (USD) per year" that makes Steinberg relatively small in the industry. But since it's owned by Yamaha I think redirect would be the best option.
Govvy (
talk)
16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep because a redirect and merge to Yamaha would be impractical; that article cannot accommodate the notable list of Steinberg products. Those products are widely covered in trade publications and are an essential part of music software, both historical and present. This article is the best place to present this material. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
02:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep' because everyone who has been in the music/MIDI recording and editing software business or used the tools know very well that the company pioneered this business segment and is of historical notability, especially because of Steinberg Cubase.
Nixdorf (
talk)
07:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply/Comment I really don't know the technical side of the music industry, I thought this was a small company, but if what you say is correct and they are innovators and pioneers, perhaps this should be kept.
Govvy (
talk)
11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Ummm,
Nixdorf and
Michael Bednarek both went with keep, Wumbolo, instead of spouting policy, maybe you should ask them to update the article if they have the relevant sources at hand to cite. As I said above, I don't know this topic/industry.
Govvy (
talk)
12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep – this is a prominent company in the music industry, and has created some very popular products and created several industry standard technologies. There are plenty of additional sources that can be found online and in industry magazines.
Bradv23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Michael Bednarek, Nixdorf, Bradv and Mark viking. Well Notable. Merge candidates have severe risk of
WP:UNDUE. Yamaha obviously seems brand as significant and gives it some independence.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
Delete I just quickly went through the sources cited and did some searching online. While trade publications have lots to say about Steinberg's products they have almost nothing to say about the company itself. The company itself just isn't notable.
Lovelylinda1980 (
talk)
15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Yamaha Corporation with a small merge of information.
glassdoor.co.uk Has the company turnover down between "$10 to $25 million (USD) per year" that makes Steinberg relatively small in the industry. But since it's owned by Yamaha I think redirect would be the best option.
Govvy (
talk)
16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep because a redirect and merge to Yamaha would be impractical; that article cannot accommodate the notable list of Steinberg products. Those products are widely covered in trade publications and are an essential part of music software, both historical and present. This article is the best place to present this material. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
02:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep' because everyone who has been in the music/MIDI recording and editing software business or used the tools know very well that the company pioneered this business segment and is of historical notability, especially because of Steinberg Cubase.
Nixdorf (
talk)
07:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply/Comment I really don't know the technical side of the music industry, I thought this was a small company, but if what you say is correct and they are innovators and pioneers, perhaps this should be kept.
Govvy (
talk)
11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Ummm,
Nixdorf and
Michael Bednarek both went with keep, Wumbolo, instead of spouting policy, maybe you should ask them to update the article if they have the relevant sources at hand to cite. As I said above, I don't know this topic/industry.
Govvy (
talk)
12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep – this is a prominent company in the music industry, and has created some very popular products and created several industry standard technologies. There are plenty of additional sources that can be found online and in industry magazines.
Bradv23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Michael Bednarek, Nixdorf, Bradv and Mark viking. Well Notable. Merge candidates have severe risk of
WP:UNDUE. Yamaha obviously seems brand as significant and gives it some independence.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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.