Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovetone

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovetone

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

Remains unreferenced two years after being tagged. Also question over notability Tomintoul (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not having inline references is not a reason to delete. There are three web sites given as sources for this. Notability may be questioned but that is not disproven. So the nominator should give some reason why thge topic is not notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one is tough. I'm guessing that Lovetone is notable, but that finding sources for this 1990s era company is going to be tough. The article has no sources, and the three external links are virtually worthless (the first is currently blank, the second is a successor company which barely mentions Lovetone, and the third page doesn't exist). Perhaps there are hard copy sources? Since references have been requested for more than two years, one could reasonably remove all the content, and start over (even assuming notability). --Larry (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely the onus is on the originator/interested editors to substantiate notability, not on the nominator to prove non-notability! And total lack of references is another solid reason for deletion.Tomintoul (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A completely false idea. The purpose is to construct an encyclopedia, not to delete it. You are wrong here Tomintoul. Nominators for deltion have to have a valid reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to construct an encyclopaedia with accurate referenced content, not personal opinion!Tomintoul (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First ref added: "Britain's wildest effect company" it says. Guitar Player also showed up with more than a handful of passing mentions of individual musicians using a Lovetone box. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 13 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 20 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if that's all the references/notability we can come up with after two years, I see no reasonable cause to imagine that another week, or month, or year will help the situation any. I think at this point we can reasonably determine that this doesn't pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 28 October 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.