Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andino Clarinets


 * 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, with no prejudice against recreation (or redirection) if the sources are increased to show not only that this particular compnany exists, but is in fact, notable. Keeper   76  21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Andino Clarinets

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like an advertisement and I can't see any thing likely to be added that would expand this beyond a stub advertising article. While worthy of a brief mention in the articles for Gemeinhardt and Luis Rossi, it would need something beyond press release boilerplate to be worthy of an article of its own Delete but without prejudice to being recreated if it can ever be expanded past the press release stage. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reads like a well-referenced article. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails notability and reads like a catalog description. Two refs are nearly identical and press releases from Gemstone Musical Instruments who makes these. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I don't think "reading like a catalog description" is a reason for deletion. If anything, this is a borderline case which hinges on whether this citation] alone is considered a reliable secondary source, and is sufficient to prove notability.- Samuel  Tan  03:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article, and several other related articles, were written by User talk:Kurtgem, who may be related to the parent company Gemstone Musical Instruments. Of the three articles, two appear to be sales ads, and the other is about Gemstone, and only mentions briefly that Andino was recently acquired.  I would think these do not fulfill WP:RS.  In the absence of reliable sources, it would fail WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird, look at the timeline of Special:Contributions/Kurtgem, Special:Contributions/Ophelia85, and Special:Contributions/Elkhart. Is there an easy way to find out if there are more? I never thought sock-puppets could exist purely to promote flute manufacturers. The world is just getting crazier. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - One ref does not count as significant coverage, and it is merely a profile on the manufacturer, which is not the subject of this article. It might not be a bad idea to AfD the other articles written by the above-mentioned flute-spammers. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I worked on the article after it was tagged for speedy but before it was AfDed. I think the two articles in Music Trades magazine should be considered independent, since they appeared in a magazine, even if they are based in part on announcements from the company. As for User:JohnnyMrNinja's suggestion that "One ref does not count as significant coverage", I disagree. If the single reference is reasonably in-depth, then it is significant. --Eastmain (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable manufactorer of cheap clarinets. One source may count as significant coverage, but in this case it does not.  The source is mainly talking about the buisiness side of things and did not choose Andino because of anything notable about the brand itself.  The company is clearly not discussed in detail, as the general notability guidelines recommend. Themfromspace (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.