Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overdrive/Preamp 250

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. Nakon 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrive/Preamp 250

A non-notable product. I cannot tell if its from a car or video game, but there are no sources and it doesn't appear notable. Also, a violation of the naming convention and possibly WP:SPAM or WP:OR MBisanz ^Talk 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an effects pedal. Yng varr 15:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've reviewed it in the context of its field, I'm not seeing the notability of an tool that seems like a generic, functional tool. MBisanz ^Talk 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up a little. It's a well-known pedal. In this case, I'm not sure what would be considered satisfying notability requirements (I say this with no rancor, but I'm sure there's no UN resolutions pending on this, and I doubt the Wall Street Journal covered it; but within guitar circles, magazines such as Guitar World would be the most likely candidate for information, but given the age, it's doubtful that any refs would be online). Also note I'm fairly neutral on the matter, just making a comment. Yng varr 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your imput. I'm sure your familiar with WP:NOTE. For me, I like superlatives in cases like this, was it deemed the "best" pedal by some magazine, the "highest selling" pedal its first year, was it the subject a huge recall or lawsuit, did it do something no other pedal did as well? The answers to any of those questions all establish notability to me. MBisanz ^talk 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per nom NBeale (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a couple of sources to the article. Reading some of the non-suitable sources online, it would appear that this was indeed a very notable product in the late 70s and 80s. Notability is not temporary, but because the product was notable before the internet was around, sources online are very hard to find. But we can assume that many sources exist in people's basements in those old magazines. This article needs the work of an expert, but it is savable. I have flagged the article for rescue to see if the Rescue squadron has any guitar experts in it's ranks. Fosnez (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to meet standards. This was a quite notable product back in its day, but alas, I can find no reliable sources to prove it. I did, however, find a few mentions of it being one of Yngwie Malmsteen’s favorite pedals. Perhaps a guitar afficianado can provide some reliable sources. —Travis ^talk 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Will be nothing more than an advertisement for DOD. Peter Fleet (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT This pedal is still in production, if that makes a difference to anyone. Perhaps it might be best to merge this with the DOD Electronics article, which could use some work itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (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.