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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMoy[edit]

CMoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm actually not sure how to articulate why this doesn't belong here. I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There are probably hundreds or thousands of low-wattage amplifier circuits. What makes this one special? Conical Johnson (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak keep. Gbook and Gscholar only returns one hit [1] which is truly passing mention. Gsearch returns more, but as I see, only blogs, forums, ebay, etc. Fails WP:V. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several different editors have worked on this article since its creation in 2004, but it's not very active, last content edit was Dec 2008. Nominee WP:N tagged it some two months ago, and I would like to give content editors more time to respond. (Changed !vote). Power.corrupts (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep sure this could probably be better sourced, but this is a notable diy amp design which has been written up in various sources. blogs don't fail wp:v if they are produced by an established expert on the topic of the article riffic (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no WP:OR, no false, misleading or otherwise controversial info in the article, it's WP:NPOV, factual, the style clearly encyclopaedic - and I would like to keep it. I could just not establish WP:V myself - and that could be due to haste, I e.g. did not pay great attention to the external links. Can you present some credible arguments, that WP:RS could be found somewhere? Power.corrupts (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next time, also try a google news archives search. You are biasing yourself toward academics if you only do books and scholar. Gigs (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's reliable secondary sources out there, like this [2]. They just need to be added to the article. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems quite well known in tech circles, being mentioned by Wired for instance.[3]. Review here:[4] There's an article about it in this magazine. Fences and windows (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2009 (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.