Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electroacoustic

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electroacoustic[edit]

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

All three dab entries are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the guideline at WP:PTM (which is essentially the argument the nominator is using). Dricherby (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any of the concerns covered at PTM to apply here. The title is a likely search term, and it's reasonable to think that any reader might be looking for the information on any of the three targets included. Alternatively one of the targets may be chosen as the primary topic, and then a hatnote added for the others, but there's no point in turning this into a red link — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redlinks are an issue. Nothing should be linking to this disambiguation page although several pages do. Even if the dabpage is kept, those articles would be improved by linking straight to the correct page. Dricherby (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I was using "red link" liberally. What I mean is that there's no point in putting a deletion notice instead of a DAB/redirect, which serves to assist the reader to find what they are looking for. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argument not to use in Afds: WP:ITSUSEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the text, "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'", which seems to be exactly the argument that Frankie is making... Dricherby (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am afraid I don't understand the rationale for the nomination. Most entries on DAB pages are partial matches to the DAB'd topic. WP:PTM is meant to prevent a DAB page becoming a list of special cases or particular instances of the same topic, where there is no possible confusion. But in this case, the topic might describe an industrial consortium, a musical instrument, a physics phenomenon, a Loyola band, an improvisational technique or a genre of music--all widely varying topics that need disambiguation. As a DAB page, this page seems well suited to its purpose. Note that there is an associated DAB page, Electroacoustics, in a similar situation. --Mark viking (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most dab entries are not partial matches - that's pretty much the point of WP:PTM, isn't it? Several of the entries here just use electroacoustic as an adjective (improvisation, phenomena and transducer) and are definitely unsuitable. I've just nominated Electro-Acoustic Research for deletion as failing WP:ORG. The Ensemble would AFAIK not be called just Electroacoustic, hence fails the primary test for inclusion. That leaves electroacoustic music, which I consider the primary topic, and the guitar, which seems to me to be a weak possibility. (I'm no musician, but I've never heard the term used to denote a guitar.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Per WP:PTM, dabpages are supposed to disambigate between things that could plausibly have the same article title, not just things that have the same word in the title. See, for example, Card, where most of the things described there could plausibly be called just "a card" in everyday speech. Could any of the things on this page be called just "electroacoustic"? More than one of them? Dricherby (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the branch of acoustical engineering to the page. That does seem to be refered to as just "electroacoustics". The others don't: even Electroacoustic music uses the word only as an adjective ("electroacoustic music", "electroacoustic composer", "electroacoustic works") in all but one instance; the articles linked from there also seem to be quite uniform in saying "electroacoustic music" rather than just "electroacoustic" (if they mention the term at all, which most don't). Dricherby (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think a valid outcome is to determine a primary topic and redirect, but my point is that having "Electroacoustic" leading nowhere is simply a poor outcome, and a disservice to the reader. As for PTM, I can agree that an electroacoustic guitar wouldn't be referred to plainly as "An electroacoustic" (btw, I'm no musician either, but I'm sure I've heard them being called that), but when it comes to the music or the engineering it is something that could be referred to plainly as "electroacoustics" within the context of the corresponding literature. I think the key part is "when there is no significant risk of confusion or reference", plus that I read PTM as mainly concerned with the idea that DABs are not meant to be like automated search engine results, and thus susceptible to be cluttered with irrelevant entries, but educated, hand-picked results instead. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PTM. Let the search results guide the reader to relevant articles. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2013 (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.