Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibsonten

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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibsonten

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

Prodded by me, endorsed by MuffledThud (talk · contribs), and removed by author without explanation. Original prod rationale was "an attempt to use WIkipedia to propagate a non-notable/non-existent myth"; endorsement comment by MuffledThud was "Unreferenced, either WP:HOAX or WP:SPAM, can find no coverage online at all, from WP:Reliable sources or otherwise."

Delete as original prodder. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weird burble about a guitar that does not exist, but might. MuffledThud (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: A non-existent guitar. Joe Chill (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If, as MuffledThud indicates, the guitar is manufactured and becomes notable, then we can revisit this. But, for now, no. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:15, 23 February 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.