Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugera


 * 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. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for keeping an article, but if reliable third-party sources turn up in the future that prove the subject passes WP:CORP, then there's no reason this can't be rewritten. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Bugera

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The entry is poorly written and looks like a corporate gloss, but is of of a notable and controversial amplifier brand sold domestically and online in most stores that sell this kind of product. Someone should just rewrite along this model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_Amplification 74.65.115.2 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No third party RS, no assertion of notability, no significant coverage shows up after a quick Google search. Page seems to be written for advertising purposes. Pim Rijkee (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can find no reliable sources to suggest that the company is notable per se; of course it does not inherit notability from the people who use its products.  Ubelowme U  Me  03:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * keep The company is notable, but the article is in serious need of revision. Righteousskills (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (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.