Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fender Prosonic

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 Fender amplifiers Joyous! | Talk 04:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)~~. Oops that page is a redirect. Please merge to Fender amplifier instead. Thanks to Mikeblas for catching that. Joyous! Noise! 15:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Prosonic

[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)

Doesn't seem to be a notable product. No references since 2015, and aside from reviews and forum posts, a plurality of substantial references to meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT don't seem to be available. Mikeblas (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as an owner of the Fender Prosonic and still playing the AMP as my primary go to AMP, having a reliable source code for its history helps greatly with understanding the amps short and misunderstood legacy. Keeping a historic artifact will make this amp rise to the level of sort after vintage class amps.I vote keep 71.243.130.211 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if we keep the article, it would have to be reduced to only a few sentences, because there are no sources cited in the article. Wikipedia no longer allows publication of unsourced and unverified information. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Very informative page Stenkamon (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has an entry in 365 Guitars, Amps & Effects You Must Play: The Most Sublime, Bizarre and Outrageous Gear Ever By Dave Hunter (pg. 240) and mentions of importance in the Guitar Amp Encyclopedia by Brian Tarquin (pgs. 21, 23, 90). In the case that someone doesn't believe it meets WP:GNG, Redirect to List of Fender products to WP:PRESERVE. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in 365 Guitars... is a one-paragraph capsule review, so I don't think it demonstrates WP:SIGCOV. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not how significant coverage is defined; it's significantly more than a trivial mention. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to List of Fender products~~. I can't find a way to view the entry in 365 Guitars, but even if I assume it's long enough to constitute significant coverage, we would only have one source establishing notability, as Guitar Amp Encyclopedia is just passing mentions. Two sources contributing to notability is a bare minimum acceptable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Cielquiparle below. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fender products per above. If a single reference in a list of 365 items is the best we can do for notability, I'm just not convinced. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a hard one, compared to some of the other Fender product pages that have not been "kept". Redirecting to List of Fender products doesn't work, in that that list page currently exists as a list of notable Fender products that have their own Wikipedia pages only. I found some other coverage as well in The Guitar and Rock Equipment (2002) by Nick Frieth. Furthermore, I couldn't help wondering what "reviews" Mikeblas found, because product reviews in reliable sources could definitely count as sigcov in my book. If we keep the article for Fender Prosonic, we'll have to gut it to only contain information that is sourced. We could redirect or merge to Fender (company), but I almost wonder if the information actually belongs in an article on guitar amps, like Guitar amplifier. Still thinking...but I have been pondering this for a while. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of a proper redirect location, I still vote to redirect to List of Fender Products to WP:PRESERVE page history in-case anyone wants to create a Fender amps page. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the page should not be outright deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article can't be redirected to List of Fender products as that page is, itself, a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, that's just a shorthand for the egregiously long title List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask You were right! Fender amplifier exists as a product page! So we can solve this somehow as a redirect or a merge, or...? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, definitely merge! Made that earlier redlink a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fender amplifiers. Normally I don't like to !vote "merge" when zero sources are cited in the article, but in this case, we've found some sources on the Fender Prosonic over the course of the AfD discussion, which could also be merged. The information contained in those sources, however, is not nearly as detailed as all the unsourced copy in the current Fender Prosonic page, so it's hard to imagine keeping it without completely gutting it (essentially performing WP:TNT). So for now, it's like a compromise solution: Merge information about Fender Prosonic into the Fender amplifiers page; Fender Prosonic then becomes a redirect to Fender amplifiers; and then someday when another editor feels compelled to try to create a standalone article on the Prosonic, fully sourced, perhaps the option exists for them to try to convert that redirect back into a standalone page (and for what it's worth, the article history will still be accessible within the redirect). And hopefully, in the course of merging content from Fender Prosonic, more attention will be given to the Fender amplifiers page itself, which is also in need of TLC. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fender amplifiers per Cielquiparle. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:04, 27 February 2023 (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.