Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fender Stringmaster

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 keep. Sandstein 05:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Stringmaster

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

This product is not notable enough for it's own page. Would better fit as a section in Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I should disclose that I am the original author of this stub, although under a slightly different article name. But I'm afraid I don't think this is really a deletion nomination at all, see the box at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and the link from there to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The argument above might support a merge and redirect at best, if evidence were to be presented. But so far all we have is a personal opinion, and 22,400 ghits unrelated to Wikipedia seems to be evidence the other way (your exact number of ghits may vary). The Stringmaster is a significant episode in the history of the steel guitar, and original instruments are now highly valued. So I'll flag that I don't even think that the proposed merge to Fender Musical Instruments Corporation is a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Haven't researched this particular product, but I'd say there's a presumption that Fender guitars are, in general, notable, as Fender are generally considered one of the most important guitar manufacturers in the world. There are too many Fender products to take the action suggested by the nominator for all of them, so unless an alternative is proposed I think keeping individual articles is best. JulesH (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The proposed merge if adopted would be the start of quite a large undertaking, see Fender Musical Instruments Corporation product list for links to many articles on less notable instrument lines. See Talk:Fender Stringmaster for some more notability discussion. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were a single individual model, I wouldn't have been as likely to say keep, but this is a series of models. There needs to be some more evidence, but there were surely reviews in all the relevant magazines. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found some, not sure how good, but take a look: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (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.