Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation

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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation[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)

Per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCATALOG. WP:LSC says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence and this list is just a compilation of things that exist (from a commerical company). Terrible referencing -- single source, plus one other reference. Lots of red-links, many non-links. No particular inclusion criteria if we consider a given instrument or model and all the different variants, sub-models, special editions, marketing changes, ... to be included. Or not? Mikeblas (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sole source cited in the article could be linked to in Fender_(company)#External_links, and perhaps Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation products is a warranted category? Mooonswimmer 00:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we already have a Category:Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, the existence of a category is never a valid reason to delete a list article. A list article is far more useful than a category since it can contain more useful information. Anything that does not have its own article should be deleted from the list. There are plenty of blue links though. Dream Focus 00:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fender products do meet WP:NLIST and User:Dream Focus has already trimmed the non-notable entries. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Also, Fails notability criteria among other things. From the one-line lead, "This is a list of products made by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation which have their own Wikipedia articles, that is false, to the 32 instances of the same source with just different page numbers, to failing WP:LISTN that reads, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There seems to be no hidden language. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the part that says "which have their own Wikipedia articles". I removed most of the bad entries that didn't meet that requirement. Anyone can remove the rest. WP:NOTPERFECT applies here. Dream Focus 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument that it fails WP:NLIST is blatantly wrong as there are multiple books detailing the history of Fender and their products (e.g., The Fender Bass: An Illustrated History or Fender Amps: The First Fifty Years each of which have detailed, in-depth listings of each product). Not to mention that this page is suitable as a navigation page with over 50 several notable entries. For that reason alone, it should be retained. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to find sources which discuss the idea of Fender products as a category, group or set. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source has been provided to support the argument that these products, as a group, have received significant coverage. Sandstein 13:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite literally false. And besides, even it did fail notability, lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I hope the closing admin disregards your vote. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me learn what "recognized informational, navigation, or development purpose" this article fulfills? Im' not sure what "recognized" means here, but I certainly don't know what specific role this topic implements. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? There are fifty pages starting with the word "Fender", and you can't see that there may be a need to list them? Why? I Ask (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm serious. I didn't write the policy you quote, and I'm not perfectly sure what it means. I guess you're saying that, of "informationnal, navigation, or development purpose", this article has a navigational purpose, and not an informational or development purpose? There are lots of ways to navigate and search articles, and some of those are already implementedfor the "Fender..." articles. What is the "recognized" navigational purpose here, and how was it established? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists can work hand in hand for navigation; having a "master list" that divides the model names under type like "bass", "guitar", "amp", etc. is more easily navigable to the reader than clicking through Category:Fender electric bass guitars, Category:Fender acoustic guitars, etc. And the list can be put into tables with manufacturing dates, designers, or sub-models that aren't quite notable for their own page, which can provide more "informational" context than a category. In terms of a developmental purpose, I assume that can mean adding red links to show what articles can potentially be created, although the inclusion criteria to allow for non-notable entries is an editing decision that can be discussed elsewhere. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's handful of categories for Fender products, and there's also four or five navigation box templates for Fender products. Was there some discussion that establised (that is, "recognized") this article for that usage? This extensive indexing seems more like WP:CATALOG than when I first opened the AfD. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, imagine doubling down based on misunderstanding policy. No, having templates, an article list, and categories has nothing to do with WP:CATALOG. That's absolutely stupid. In fact, there's a guideline about this at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates where: Category workers, list builders and outline builders, and series box designers all endeavor to develop comprehensive networks of links for navigating the encyclopedia. Because of this, increasingly, multiple entries to fields of knowledge are being provided. Take "symphonies", for example:
Categories: Category:Symphonies

Lists: List of symphonies with names

Navigation Templates: Template:Symphonies by number and name

Your entire argument now is reduced to a misunderstanding of common policy and guidelines. There's absolutely no reason not to have all three. While I hate to pull this card, you're an administrator. You should know better. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "doubled down" on anything: I asked a sincere question. There's really no clear description of "recognized" in the policy, so it's only natural to ask after it. I don't appreciate your insults, and encourage you to assume good faith in your interactions with others. Further, that I'm an administrator doesn't mean that I'm completely familiar with every one of Wikipedia's ever-changing policies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never insulted you, although I did say that conflating an internal navigation system with WP:CATALOG was stupid. I do apologize for accusing you of doubling down when you actually wanted clarification, though. But at the same time, I do find it troubling that you would nominate several list articles without knowing that guideline (which has existed since 2004), especially considering your long tenure. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this but I wonder if you have checked Google before suggesting that RSs have not discussed the idea of Fender products. Maybe @Why? I Ask would be willing to do the footwork to demonstrate what seems rather obvious to me (and which I have already checked myself). —DIYeditor (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I literally did above. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Versus figuratively? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be snippy (or use the word "literally" as an exclamation instead of what it means - geesh), you listed two things that refer to bass guitars and amps as categories, but the subject of this page is "products" so it would help to see something that discusses "Fender products" as an idea. If Sandstein is going to demand it. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I used the word literally correctly. I listed two sources that have shown Fender products (specifically, bass guitars and amps) have been discussed as a set. It would be dumb to say that we could have List of Fender amps or List of Fender basses but not a parent article. And besides, there are sources that discuss all products with Fender: The Sound Heard 'Round the World or any of the other books that are just a single search away (considering that Fender is without a doubt the most documented musical instrument brand). I'm going to have to fault Sandstein for their poor delete rationale due to a lack of a WP:BEFORE search and a lack of understanding of policy (that navigation lists are kept regardless of notability). Why? I Ask (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as "literally", was there some concern that someone would think you meant that Sandstein was figuratively false or that you figuratively did above? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists are a navigational aid for our readers (most of whom have no idea about categories). We have lots of articles on individual Fender products, these being extraordinarily notable; why on earth wouldn't we gather them into a list to help our readers? 149.155.219.44 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The contents meet WP:NLIST as reliable sources group them. Lots of source can be found by following WP:BEFORE searches, including:

Bacon, T. (2007). The Fender Electric Guitar Book: A Complete History of Fender Instruments. United States: Backbeat Books.
Guitars Made by the Fender Company. (1986). United States: Bold Strummer.
Hunter, D. (2020). Fender Telecaster and Stratocaster: The Story of the World's Most Iconic Guitars. United States: Voyageur Press.

CT55555(talk) 04:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NLIST, can also be merged into a suitable article where appropriate if necessary. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:58, 13 February 2023 (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.