Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcription machine

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 delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription machine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

We probably do need an article on speech-to-text/text-to-speech machines, but this isn't a useful starting point for it and there isn't a decent version anywhere in the history. Please will the community authorise the WP:TNT of this content. —S Marshall T/C 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that this likely has merit as a topic, this current article is unsourced and made up of such interesting sentences such as "First, as a transcriptionist, one must learn the different types of goods and transcription machinery that is needed to become effective in what is going to be done." Completely unsalvagable in its current form so delete per TNT. CoconutOctopus talk 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dictation machine#Transcription. For those unfamiliar with this old technology, a dictation machine is what the boss used to tell his typist what the letter should say, and a transcription machine is what the typist used to listen to the recording. Back in the day, many of them used ordinary audio cassettes, so you didn't necessarily need a specialized machine. However, if you had a specialized machine, then the transcription end usually had a foot pedal, so the typist could pause the recording as needed without taking her hands off the typewriter. Alternatively, we could keep it and strip it to a brief stub, keeping the cited textbook. (The other "reference" can be seen at archive.org and is useless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect target is specifically about digital transcription, so I don't think it's useful without a substantial rewrite.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect - although it's a tricky one. Noted the redirect target above, but also S Marshall's comments about suitability. Additionally I question whether there was any such thing as a "transcription machine", the title of this page. What the archive.org link shows, and what were generally sold, were transcription sets. The machine part was the cassette player, with the addition of a pedal or means to pause. Did these then become transcription machines? I think we would need a secondary source that says so to support a redirect. Generally these were transcription sets. There was no mechanical transcription. The page itself, of course, lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. We don't appear to have any evidence that a secondary treatment of transcription sets has occurred. Yet it is not a stretch to think that there might be something out there - whether under this title or another. So then we have the nom.'s request to TNT this article. There is at least one AfD closer who will point out, if they see this, that TNT is an essay, and one that they believe is popular but not policy based. TNT is not a policy reason to delete, but WP:IAR is. If the removal of this article will allow a better sourced and better attested article to be written, then an IAR/TNT delete is in order. If that is the reason for deletion, the redirect will also get in the way. But the reason this is tricky is that one could argue you could just blank this and start over. If there is not consensus to delete this page, take this !vote as support for blanking the content and replacing it with something more accurate (even if that is initially much shorter). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2025 (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.