Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epiphone Valve Junior


 * 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   keep. The comment "is inexpensive enough and widely available enough to be reviewed in many places" is in itself a statement of notability, provided by the nominator as a reason why it's not notable? Add the refs, weed out the bad refs. If it's "just a product description", but reactions/reviews/criticisms/popularity can be verified, add it. Cleanup, reference, take out any spam. Keeper |  76  03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Epiphone Valve Junior

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

Non-notable product.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a very popular amp series, as evidenced by a quick Google search.  It is a certainty that it has been reviewed by many audio publications.  Examples (not all of these are super reliable by themselves, but do indicate that the product is widely reviewed):      .  Here's an article from a magazine that starts "By now, you’re probably familiar with the Epiphone Valve Jr..." showing it is quite popular:.  There are hundreds more source out there, these are just the first few I found. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Such lists of reviews on non-RS sources indicate only that the amp (as with countless others) is inexpensive enough and widely available enough to be reviewed in many places; it's not an indicator of notability and the article has nothing to suggest notability. It's just a product description, as would any article on a non-notable product would be.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: all that is required for notability is coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this product has. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. This is a product listing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against products having pages. If you are saying that the article is SPAMish, then that can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But there is a policy stating if a product is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope. In the absence of actual RS coverage, assertions of popularity backed up by favorably interpreting a Google search listing and the number of non-RS reviews available are not real indications of notability.  It's also worth noting the Article Rescue Squadron has not made any changes to the article since being flagged.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is quite a distortion of what I actually said. All the sources I provided are from serious publications, not just random people.  Not being an expert on guitars, I can't be sure which sources have actually earned a reputation for fact checking, but I am sure that at least some of them are, in fact, reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2009 (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.