- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshall micro stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable product w/ no assertion of it by de-prodder or subsequent editor. Probably a speedy candidate, but I didn't think to nom it for that before the prod. Mbinebri talk ← 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a speedy candidate since no category in WP:CSD for products and I don't think it currently reads like an advert. But it is not notable enough for its own article. No reliable sources discussing this product. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:43, 12 June 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) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, very popular amplifier. Google search tearns up 30,000+ hits. Article needs to be re-written. Izzy007 Talk 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect to Marshall Amplification. (Marshall Stack is already a redirect there.) Dawn Bard (talk) 19:19, 20 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.