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.
Cite to the publications and not sales pages please. The article as is needs to go. An article about this company is ok but we do not need new Wiki page for every guitar they ever make. Wikipedia is not the sales catalogue.
Ficadimerda (
talk) 03:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Also I did not propose deletion of this page, just all extra ESP guitar promo articles.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
03:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Fender article is well sourced and has more information than just product catalogue. Again I never asked to have
ESP Guitars main article deleted. If individual products have own pages they should have third party reliable sourcing and that goes for Fender and any company too. Just because the company is notable does not mean every thing it ever made is worthy of new articles.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
15:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Ficadimerda I hope you do
WP:BEFORE for each product prior to AfDing all of them. What did you discover that made you prod every single ESP product? Surely some products are notable.
Lightburst (
talk)
15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes probably some products are notable but from Wikipedia category it is impossible to know which is. If notability of every product in the category cannot be demonstrated surely it is best to have redirect to main ESP Guitars page until it can.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and
WP:SNOW. Echo the other comments that the nomination is frivolous. The argument "suspected to fail
WP:GNG" isn't credible, even the most basic web search shows significant coverage in reliable sources, such as this one:
[1]. The nominator has been around long enough to know that they shouldn't propose deletion without even looking for sources showing notability, see
WP:BEFORE. Regarding promotional or unsourced content, see
WP:NOTCLEANUP and
WP:FIXIT. There are dozens of musician and other general articles that link to it, so it's certainly not a walled garden. The existence of other stub articles about individual models is entirely irrelevant to the question of deleting the main article. --
IamNotU (
talk)
13:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes I did that. The pages do nothing to prove notability (maybe some not even real products). I never said anything about walled gardens and did not nominate this main article for deletion.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: Discussion of the individual instrument articles or their proposed deletion is off-topic. If there are problems with them, use the talk pages. This is not the right place to address them. Please keep discussion related to the
ESP Guitars article. Thanks. --
IamNotU (
talk)
16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I disagree with
User:IamNotU. It is distinctly 'on topic'. You are engaging in a mass deletion, and notice to interested editors is not only appropriate, but called for. You are doing this without notifying the interested editors. The light of day should shine upon your effort and expose it for all to see. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I looked a little but no editing in years of tags asking for source. Most articles in category have not even text, just product name. No third party sourcing at all. My only effort is to clean up. If products can be proven notable I don't mind articles.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
16:24, 14 September 2020 (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.
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.
Cite to the publications and not sales pages please. The article as is needs to go. An article about this company is ok but we do not need new Wiki page for every guitar they ever make. Wikipedia is not the sales catalogue.
Ficadimerda (
talk) 03:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Also I did not propose deletion of this page, just all extra ESP guitar promo articles.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
03:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Fender article is well sourced and has more information than just product catalogue. Again I never asked to have
ESP Guitars main article deleted. If individual products have own pages they should have third party reliable sourcing and that goes for Fender and any company too. Just because the company is notable does not mean every thing it ever made is worthy of new articles.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
15:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Ficadimerda I hope you do
WP:BEFORE for each product prior to AfDing all of them. What did you discover that made you prod every single ESP product? Surely some products are notable.
Lightburst (
talk)
15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes probably some products are notable but from Wikipedia category it is impossible to know which is. If notability of every product in the category cannot be demonstrated surely it is best to have redirect to main ESP Guitars page until it can.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and
WP:SNOW. Echo the other comments that the nomination is frivolous. The argument "suspected to fail
WP:GNG" isn't credible, even the most basic web search shows significant coverage in reliable sources, such as this one:
[1]. The nominator has been around long enough to know that they shouldn't propose deletion without even looking for sources showing notability, see
WP:BEFORE. Regarding promotional or unsourced content, see
WP:NOTCLEANUP and
WP:FIXIT. There are dozens of musician and other general articles that link to it, so it's certainly not a walled garden. The existence of other stub articles about individual models is entirely irrelevant to the question of deleting the main article. --
IamNotU (
talk)
13:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes I did that. The pages do nothing to prove notability (maybe some not even real products). I never said anything about walled gardens and did not nominate this main article for deletion.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: Discussion of the individual instrument articles or their proposed deletion is off-topic. If there are problems with them, use the talk pages. This is not the right place to address them. Please keep discussion related to the
ESP Guitars article. Thanks. --
IamNotU (
talk)
16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I disagree with
User:IamNotU. It is distinctly 'on topic'. You are engaging in a mass deletion, and notice to interested editors is not only appropriate, but called for. You are doing this without notifying the interested editors. The light of day should shine upon your effort and expose it for all to see. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I looked a little but no editing in years of tags asking for source. Most articles in category have not even text, just product name. No third party sourcing at all. My only effort is to clean up. If products can be proven notable I don't mind articles.
Ficadimerda (
talk)
16:24, 14 September 2020 (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.