Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-mu Proteus X

: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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[E-mu Proteus X]]=

:{{la|E-mu Proteus X}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-mu Proteus X}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|E-mu Proteus X}})

non-notable product. Ridernyc (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Em-u. The Proteus was an important instrument in its day but not so much to warrant a dedicated article RadioFan (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep on the basis of the above comment--if it wa important in its day it remains appropriate for a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

:May want to read what he said or make an actual argument, since he clearly says it was not important enough to have it's own article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (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.