Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fender Cyclone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. This hinges on how much coverage these guitars have gotten in the relevant sources. Many feel that it ought to have been covered, but as the sources seem to be mostly unavailable online, people are uncertain. If somebody does some library research, a next AfD might come to a more definite conclusion. Sandstein 08:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fender Cyclone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I had prodded this with the rationale that it does not appear to be a notable instrument. The prod was seconded with the comment that it fails WP:GNG. An IP editor contested the prod with no comment; now the issue stands for discussion. LadyofShalott 04:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thanks IP--I wonder if you care to comment here. Anyway, I did some work on the article and discovered that there is nothing to discover. They can't all be zingers, and this wasn't one--Fender made it for a couple of years and then scrapped it; no one, including the press, seems to have taken note of it. I added all I could to the article, and you can see it doesn't amount to much. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete Only references seem to be in passing refs from a few artists that use one, or in reference books that list every available model. Did find [1] but I don't think that suffices. See more detailed delete rationale in my comment below Gaijin42 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is inconceivable that a guitar made by Fender for several years did not receive reviews in the world's guitar magazines. These may not be available online but they must exist. Google Books shows one review in Musician, and there must be several more in print sources.--Michig (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, would one review (which may just be a one-paragraph note in the margin) make it notable? It would be helpful if you can find the review so we can judge it: Vintage Guitar and Guitar Player both have reviews and "reviews", and the latter are little more than announcements/press releases. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, I don't have an exhaustive collection of guitar-themed print magazines from that era to hand, although there are at least 3 in the UK that would probably have reviewed it. None of these magazines make their content available online.--Michig (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If every guitar from a manufacturer is reoutinely reviewed, doesn't that lead to WP:ROUTINE? Also, WP:NOTINHERITED, if the only reason the guitar is reviewed, is because fender made it, it seems like that is more fenders notability. also WP:PRODUCT says not to create articles about each and every model/line unless a good non-stub article can be written. Although none of these rationales are "enough" on their own, "by their powers combined", I think it means this article should not exist, unless it is truly a notable model, which the article itself indicates otherwise. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a gross misrepresentation of what both WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED actually say.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, would one review (which may just be a one-paragraph note in the margin) make it notable? It would be helpful if you can find the review so we can judge it: Vintage Guitar and Guitar Player both have reviews and "reviews", and the latter are little more than announcements/press releases. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are several books dedicated to a trainspotterish detailing of Fender guitar models over the years (try searching on Amazon, for example), e.g. Tony Bacon's Fender Electric Guitar Book: Complete History of Fender Guitars. This is significant coverage and these are reliable sources. Fender is only one of a handful of guitar manufacturers that gets this sort of coverage. Why would we want to delete a purely factual, verifiable article on a subject that would be of interest to our readers? --Michig (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one reason: lack of sources...(not that I prefer Gibson, though I probably do.) The Cyclone is not in any of my trainspotter books, or my collection of VG and GP issues. As it turns out, Musician is not available through my library. So, I still have nothing to base an article except for "Cyclone was a guitar made by Fender"--I can't even give dates for it. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, so far you seem to be making the case that sources should exist. It needs to be demonstrated though that they do exist. Without that, the article passes neither WP:N, nor WP:V. LadyofShalott
- If a book covers every model from a mfgr, does that grant individual notability? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Musician does cover it, Tony Bacon's book does cover it. Therefore it passes WP:V and WP:N.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't pull up the proper page, but searching in Bacon for Cyclone delivers a list of guitars made in Mexico including the Cyclone. But I wouldn't call that "cover"--it's a listing, just like it lists every other single model. Your argument would suggest that every individual version of every model is notable, since it lists the Cyclone, the Cyclone HH, and the Cyclone II in the exact same way ("lists" here means "gives a set of specs," nothing more). As for Musician, I can't see it so I can't state that it's actually discussion or even a real review, as I said before. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly we wouldn't have a separate for each individual variation of the same model of guitar, and no that (obviously) is not what I am suggesting. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't pull up the proper page, but searching in Bacon for Cyclone delivers a list of guitars made in Mexico including the Cyclone. But I wouldn't call that "cover"--it's a listing, just like it lists every other single model. Your argument would suggest that every individual version of every model is notable, since it lists the Cyclone, the Cyclone HH, and the Cyclone II in the exact same way ("lists" here means "gives a set of specs," nothing more). As for Musician, I can't see it so I can't state that it's actually discussion or even a real review, as I said before. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Musician does cover it, Tony Bacon's book does cover it. Therefore it passes WP:V and WP:N.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If a book covers every model from a mfgr, does that grant individual notability? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, so far you seem to be making the case that sources should exist. It needs to be demonstrated though that they do exist. Without that, the article passes neither WP:N, nor WP:V. LadyofShalott
- Only one reason: lack of sources...(not that I prefer Gibson, though I probably do.) The Cyclone is not in any of my trainspotter books, or my collection of VG and GP issues. As it turns out, Musician is not available through my library. So, I still have nothing to base an article except for "Cyclone was a guitar made by Fender"--I can't even give dates for it. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. There are references out there about these guitars. For example, I remember reading reviews when the Cyclone II came out in Guitar One magazine [2][3]. I'm sure with a little digging people will be able to find more information. The article is well written and encyclopedic, just in need of more references.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't seem to find the exact issue, but I also remember the Cyclone and Tornado both getting a review by Guitar Player magazine when they came out in 2000 . . . that would make them notable when they came out. --Stvfetterly (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (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.