Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEM and SSM chips (2nd nomination)

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. The

WP:SYNTH arguments are compelling and have remained unrebutted: it is not clear why two separate companies and their products ought to be treated in the same article. This does not prevent recreation as separate articles. Sandstein 10:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

CEM and SSM chips

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Different enough that it's not a G4, but disruptively re-created and nothing to indicate concerns raised in the discussion have been satisfied. Suggest SALT if this closes the same way. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should that be list of Engineering-related deletion discussions, these are electronic hardware not software. Rob Kam (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - I kept out of the last AfD as I felt the page was appropriate, but not in the form it was in; a list of components. For those who don't know, both the CEM and SSM chips were the foundations to electronic music and to its sound, all through the 80s. In fact, in the 2010s they were re-created by companies like Music Tribe and Alfa-APAR, and are now used in modern synthesizers like the Oberheim OB-X8 and others. Definitely worthy of an article describing their genesis and influence on modern music over the past 40 years, but not a list of components. Happy to add to it if it survives this AfD - Alison ^talk 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide reliable sources to back this up please? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am, indeed, and a whole bunch of the

WP:RS is in books and articles dating back to the 70s and 80s. There are papers written about them, plus dozens of publication, books etc. What I don't have much of, unfortunately, is time to apply to this, especially if it all gets flushed down the drain anyways- Alison ^talk 00:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Alison if it closes as delete, I'm happy to draftify it for you or any established editor. (Also, love seeing your name on my watchlist again.) Star Mississippi 00:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I'm a little sad about this AfD, as it's one of those niche but critical subjects that often gets overlooked. It needs to be related, but in layperson's terms. How many people know that

Yamaha DX-7 and later Korg and Roland ROMplers, but funny enough - they're back, and FM and ROMplers kinda aren't :) - Alison ^talk 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A big chunk of the history of these ICs and how they influenced instruments is laid out in this book, for example - Alison ^talk 00:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of components and what synths they are used in was an invaluable reference for me; having that information scattered across dozens of individual synth pages was not a viable substitute for my use case. What's the essential difference between a list of a couple dozen synth ICs and a list of literally hundreds of GPU chipsets like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units ? Kaleja (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the last version of this page, there is no demonstration of notability, no sources, and no obvious potential for this to become a truly encyclopedic article. Popcornfud (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is true that the current state of the article needs serious work, the sources Alison provided above does show notability. The article meets
WP:GNG. I'm obviously not able to view the previous version of the article so I can't comment on that, but on the strict question of "it is notable" the answer seems to be "yes". - Aoidh (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The article confuses two distinct separate brands together. --19:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Kam (talk • contribs)
Keep without prejudice to splitting. I don't see the problem here. The previous article was a list of these chips and was rightly deleted per
WP:NOTDIR, the new article is a prose description of the topic. It needs better sourcing, but I have no reason to doubt the sources that Alison provided. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for the reasons listed by Alison, with a possible split or move to something like "Analog synthesiser ICs". PaulT2022 (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find sources for them and I'm unsure why the two companies are listed together, I don't see any relation between them in the sourcing given here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redrafted

I have gone and created two draft articles to cover SSM and CEM, and their products, Draft:Sound Semiconductor Inc and Draft:OnChip Systems. --Rob Kam (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:55, 18 December 2022 (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.