Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warmoth Guitars

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warmoth Guitars[edit]

[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)

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. This company exists, though there is little coverage in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the article creator, this is a bit difficult. I'm quietly confident that the sources will be found in time, but it won't be easy because the web is so cluttered with blogs and similar non-reliable and/or primary sources. Warmoth is one of the big two suppliers of mail-order guitar parts worldwide (the other being Stewmac, aka Stewart-MacDonald website https://www.stewmac.com/ and we don't have an article on them either). In many ways they created the industry, and hold a similar position in their field to say Paiste in cymbals or Gibson in guitars. So on the one hand, deleting this sub-stub would be ridiculous, it's most unlikely to fail either GNG or the more detailed guideline for organisations with thorough research. But on the other hand, it currently satisfies the criteria for deletion, there's (sadly) no useful content there, and finding the sources will not be easy. I get 1,200,000 ghits for Warmoth guitar (no rabbit's ears), but sorting through them for reliable secondary sources will take some time... the archives of music trade magazines might be more fruitful perhaps. I get only 752,000 for Collard piano, while Collard and Collard are similarly notable in a similarly small field, see Frederick William Collard (they just came to mind as I've just bought and restored a c1830 example of their work). I note that we don't have articles on Collard and Collard, or on Stewmac. But we should have both, and one on Warmoth too. Andrewa (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I'm like a bloodhound when it comes to finding sources, and after about 15 minutes looking for some--any--reliable secondary sources to support the notability of this article, I felt a bit...well...like my prom date hadn't shown up. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about an hour! Online is unlikely to work IMO. Paper copies of trade magazines are more likely, but more laborious still. Thanks for the ping, and suggestions welcome (or for C&C or Stewmac for that matter... they're all encyclopedic topics).

I did find several online mentions such as https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-199864993.html but they're all behind paywalls. As probably by far the largest manufacturer of Fender copy bodies, I expect they'd have been prominent in this landmark case. That's why I find this difficult... from a reader's and even a theoretical point of view, this should be kept, as the topic is notable and the sources are undoubtedly there. But from a procedural point of view I see no choice but to delete it, as I can't demonstrate these sources and we don't want to open the floodgates for every non-notable organisation that can find one Wikipedian (there are lots of us) to vouch for them to therefore get an article. Suggestions welcome! (Obviously.)

As I tried to say above, no great loss if this is deleted. If I'd known it would remain a sub-stub for so long I would not have bothered creating it. Ideally we'd have a place to archive such sub-stubs with possibilities, similarly to an R with possibilities, but I don't even know where to redirect this. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2018 (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.