Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Noise Reduction

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 merge to Noise_reduction#In_audio. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Noise Reduction

No evidence of notability. Many of the links that pose as refs either don't mentiion the topic or don't support that statement they are attached to. Seems to be a Nat Semi term for some of their chips, that's all. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the linked articles (a company history) have changed, yes. However, even though today DNR may or may not be "a Nat Semi term for some of their chips" it was, for a brief time in the 1980s, the company's attempt to create a noise-reduction brand, and found use primarily in car stereos (by Blaupunkt and others [1]), most notably on the "breakthrough" GM Delco Bose system (note the DNR logo [2]). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, I can't find any sources which give more than a name-drop on this particular subject. Absent more comprehensive independent sourcing, a full article on it can't be sustained. However, this does seem the type of topic where a suitable merge target is likely to exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I'm not sure to where. Sources are all over the radar.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in that case. To Noise_reduction#In_audio, where it would be OK to mention it even though it's not notable enough to have an article. (nom) Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dicklyon or redirect to a fork from Noise reduction called something like Accoustic noise reduction or Audio noise reduction. Also, this could be a valid search term for something like Active noise control. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not a generic term - that's why it's capitalized. You can find DNR in the U.S. Trademark Search at [3]. The reason none of you have heard of it is because the trademark was abandoned in 1991, after DNR failed to take the world by storm; however, that doesn't mean it isn't notable: There are plenty of obsolete and obscure technologies with their own articles on Wikipedia. In the early to mid 1980s, DNR was marketed as a single-sided noise reduction system that could work on cassettes, FM, etc. The idea was that it could coexist with the ubiquitous Dolby B and provide further hiss reduction, and as such it was first found in some premium products (such as the much-touted Delco Bose system). However, what happened was some low-end makers (i.e. Sparkomatic) added it so they could claim "DNR noise reduction" without paying the higher royalties for a Dolby B decoder; a Dolby-encoded cassette with DNR but no Dolby sounded worse than a Dolby cassette through a Dolby decoder. Since DNR took some explaining, and few systems, particularly car stereos, had room for more than one noise reduction system, DNR faded away by the end of the decade.

It seems that a couple of the sources in the article that once described DNR now do not; why not start by finding new sources? Google searches aren't helped by the fact that "dynamic noise reduction" is also used generically and DNR is often used to mean "Dolby noise reduction" (a possible intentional confusion on the part of Nat Semi). However, contemporary issues of Stereo Review, Audio, etc. describe the system. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that what you say largely agrees with the marginal notability of this trademarked scheme. Why not just mention it in a more generic article. We don't need separate articles on every failed trademarked hack. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean I've never heard of it? The stock stereo in my belated 1989 Oldsmobile 98 had it. It did OK, unless I was playing anything by Orbital - but I digress. The problem remains, and I'm pretty much with Dicklyon on this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:19, 12 January 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.