Talk:Gretsch Drums

Clean up
I have started cleaning up this article. It may not be perfect; some information is still un-updated, and some parts of the article still needs to be reformmated. I'm quite busy at the moment, so I hope for people who are able to help. Optakeover 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gretch Logo Drums.jpg
Image:Gretch Logo Drums.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What a waste of time. The net result of this was to require another user not just to provide a rationale, but to upload the file all over again, see File:Gretsch-logo-drums.jpg. And of course in the meantime other users had to add the deletion template, list the file for deletion, and delete it.


 * The rationale was not difficult to write, and would have taken far less time than deleting the file did. There are no secrets in it, and no great research needed to find the information required. And of course, adding the rationale would have improved the encyclopedia far more than deleting the file did, remembering that the use of the file was justified and would have stood up in court as far as we know (IANAL) just as well without the rationale as with it. The only problem was the missing template.


 * And improving the encyclopedia is what we're supposed to be here for, isn't it?


 * I do note that the template and the message above were both posted by a bot, but there were real users involved as well. Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nighthawk series
The Gretsch Nighthawk Drums are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.119.211 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

PROD
Article was proposesd for deletion. Rationale is marginally valid, but it's also a bit sad... Gretsch drums are notable to the point that anyone who knows the slightest thing about the history of drumming and/or of rock'n'roll should find it funny that it's even being questioned. The article does need work but there's lots of good material in it too so deletion is not the preferred option to say the least. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The rationale for deletion remans valid for the moment. In order to address this citations in WP:RS have to appear. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In that it's been contested, it will now have to go to AfD. I don't recommend this, for reasons given.


 * There is a claim of notability in the lead, and it's easily tested... just ask any drummer. Start with the ones listed in the the article, and prepare to be laughed at. See also Gretsch (which is similarly unsourced I'm afraid).


 * Agree it should be sourced, and sure it will be. Deletion will not improve Wikipedia. AfD might, by spurring us to action, but is that really a good way to collaborate?


 * The enormity of the claim that Gretsch drums might not be notable is almost newsworthy itself... for all the wrong reasons. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. The article is not improved. At present it gives undue weight to their range of equipment and the word 'leading' is a weasel word and no assertion of notability at all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that leading is not encyclopedic. Easily fixed.


 * Have a look at the last photo at http://www.drummerman.net/gallery.html and see what you're up against. It's not a secondary source, and it doesn't answer any of your valid criticisms of the article. But are you serious about deletion? Krupa at that stage of his life could play what he chose and did. Even if you disbelieve that, and think he's just being paid to play Gretsch for the camera, that in itself should give you pause... no insignificant drum company would be able to do that.


 * I think you miss my point. I agree there are problems, and I'm glad you brought them to my attention. But to delete the article in response to these problems is a bit like demolishing the Statue of Liberty to remove pigeon droppings. It does solve the immediate problem, but... (-> Andrewa (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability tag
If you look carefully at the discussion above, the notability of the article is questioned but there seems no logical or policy-based reason for this, and no evidence is given despite an easily-tested claim of notability. The contributor who originally posted the notability tag gave no rationale at all.

So, I'm removing the tag. If you reinstate it please give a rationale. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight
From above At present it gives undue weight to their range of equipment.... 

This isn't really an undue weight issue. Neutral point of view reads in part An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Read in isolation this could be seen to justify the comment above, but read in context gives a completely different sense. The section, and the entire page, is about POV, not about the absence of balance just because other relevant information has yet to be added.

The question is not whether the information on current product range is unbalanced, but whether it is encyclopedic. Similar material appears in the Pearl Drums article, in a very similar format. It seems to me that such information should be added to several other articles on other drum companies, rather than removed from this one.

But this lack of balance is one of the several reasons the article currently reads like a sales catalogue. It does need addressing. It's just not an undue weight issue as Wikipedia uses the term. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Can anyone be specific as to what the problem is here? The only references that seem to be self-published at the time the tag was added seem to be to the official website.

WP:SELFPUB does state as one of the five criteria for such sources being valid the article is not based primarily on such sources, and that was and still is true, so I'm guessing that's the problem. But that's not a matter of the sources not being acceptable, it's that we want others as well. The sources all meet the other four criteria. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In that nobody speaks, I'm removing the tag. Please provide some rationale if you reinstate it. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)