Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardstyle basics

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hardstyle basics

A tutorial like this is simply not encyclopedic, and is unverifiable opinion. I suggest it is deleted. Barneyboo (Talk) 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

- Im against that. Im an electronic music producer and I found article like this very helpful. 21:39, 20 December 2005 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.188.34.43 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

- In response to all who concider this not suitable for the encyclopedia. Here is the basic reasons for it to remain:

• Historical value:

This may not seam relevant now today, but who's gonna write about it in 50 years time? The veteran producers who's reminding the old gold days as youths when they produced hardstyle music:

"If I can remember correctly we used some sort of artificial synthesizers, what's the letter combination again? Oh VST it was, to produce all sorts of synthetic noises..."

Who will write about it in 100 years time? The people who posess the historical knowledge, but who have no experience in producing the music itself.

• For technological reasons:

We are living in a world where technology is new tomorrow at breakfast and will be obsolete tomorrow by midnight. The technology that is used to produce music of today truly deserves a place in the encyclopedia.

• For future preservation:

So the historics of tomorrow have some sort of reference to lean back upon when they describe the music of the 21st century.

If there is anytime this should be written it is right here, right now. Today as the music is produced for the reasons stated above. It will be too late in 10 years time, let along in 50 years time. Most of the older producers will be dead by then. But if we preserve the knowledge today the elements that build up this style can be reused and reviewed by everybody in the future music to come.

--Jobro 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - while yes, I could understand the value in preserving all sorts of information in some form, Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of information in existence, and this article arguably does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Barneyboo (Talk) 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/Comment: It doesn't belong here. However, the creator might look into Wikibooks and see if there is somewhere there where this information could be presented. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Quarl 11:48, 24 December 2005 (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.