Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peterson Electro-Musical Products

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. ✗plicit 14:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Electro-Musical Products

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Once you take out the primary sources (source 1 and 2), you are left with 3 sources used for brief statements. source 3 is a product review thus not SIGCOV, 4 is a product listing thus not RS, source 5 is an ad in a magazine, thus fails RS. A search for sources turned up a mix of product sites, database entries, Social Media and other Primary sources. Prod objected to on the basis that: " longstanding, well-developed article deserves additional review" Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Illinois. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the article is poorly written and sourced, rather than it failing the "general notability guideline". I ran a quick search and found three sources quite early on, that seem reliable, that discuss the company or founder: https://www.thediapason.com/news/peterson-electro-musical-products-celebrates-75-years https://www.premierguitar.com/peterson-electro-musical-products-inc-mourns-the-passing-of-founder https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-electro-musical-products-inc-mourns-passing-founder I suspect that if if you were to search for the products listed in each of the latter paragraphs, you would find them reviewed and discussed in the appropriate trade magazine. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly ran another search on a few product names to see if I was right, and I appear to be.

https://charlestonclassicalguitar.org/blog/2023/09/24/peterson-stroboclip-hd-review-precision-tuning-at-your-fingertips/

https://guitarinteractivemagazine.com/review/peterson-stroboplus-hd/

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc

https://www.musicradar.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc-guitar-tuner

https://www.premierguitar.com/gear/quick-hit-peterson-strobostomp-hd-review

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-stroboplus-hd

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-vs1

https://mixdownmag.com.au/reviews/hardware-and-accesories/reviewed-peterson-stroboplus-hd/ (no byline)

Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review of your source list:

source 1: a brief routine press release about the company reaching 75 years, does not contribute to notability
source 2 and 3: the same press release published by two different publisher, about the passing of the founder does not contribute to notability
If I remember correctly product reviews that focus on one product are not WP:SIGCOV of the company, thus do not contribute to notability of the company.

SO in essence no SIGCOV that is required to pass GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources from WP:PRODUCTREV. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it does seem that those first three are press releases. Sorry. However, if if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them. The same goes for record labels. I suggest that you go back and try to do searches, as I suggested. There is a lot written about their products and the company. Their products are used widely in the music industry and the (and the company) have been written about. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:PRODUCTREV there are three caveats: the reviews must be 1) significant, 2) independent and 3) reliable, which the sources I provided are (except the one without a byline). And for what it is worth, I did not try hard to find sources. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product ... do not count as significant sources So no the product reviews are not significant. What PRODUCTREV means by the caveats is that if the product review gives a broader review e.g. such as reviewing the product as part of a company review and that this company review section must be significant. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them err no need. WP:PRODUCTREV is a subset of WP:NORG, records have a different guideline WP:NSONG which allows critical reviews. Different topics have different notability guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then a move may be in order. Either way, we'll see what other have to write about the subject. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the facts attributed to non-independent sources 1 and 2 in the article are found in those sources. It is quite possible that the web site has changed considerably since 2011, but this means that very little of the article can be verified and that the content attributed to those sources must be removed. The resulting article will be very thin indeed. Yes, there are product "descriptions" as noted above, and a few that are more than just recitations of product details, but I don't think that product listings or reviews alone rise to NCORP. We would need some substantial sources about the company itself. I did find some mentions in books: mention1, mention2, but just mentions. The most ample source of information is the obit in Premier Guitar, but that isn't enough to achieve NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This subject fails both WP:GNG (especially as to substantial/in-depth and enduring qualities) and WP:NCORP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:50, 5 June 2024 (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.