Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Guitars


 * 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. Joe 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Guitars

 * — (View AfD)

Advertising. Article was nominated for prod, but prod tag has been removed without explanation or editing of article Macmic77 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge verifiable info into Gibson Guitar Corporation. CyberAnth 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Heritage Guitars is a separate company, and is notable enough to have its own separate article. Nick Graves 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep  – is a company in its own right and should either be deleted outright or kept and worked on (it was very PoV until I removed a few sections). I am erring on the side of keep, albeit week because they are a verifiable company. Stress: article needs work, though. Bubba hotep 11:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per Nick's efforts at improving this article with proper sourcing. Bubba hotep 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The company is separate from Gibson and notable for its high-quality, traditionally crafted instruments built in the Gibson style. Such can be substanitated by nontrivial coverage in more than one independent source. I will begin adding such sources to the article immmediately. Nick Graves 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to clear the bar for notability and verifiability, for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nick did a good job in cleaning up and satisfying WP:V. I think it's notable, so that covers that. --Falcorian (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would chime in a hearty "keep" vote if sources could be shown that a couple Heritage guitars have been reviewed in something like Acoustic Guitar (magazine) or Guitar Player Magazine. I am sure a quick email to the company will turn up knowledge of any such thing. CyberAnth 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is quite likely that such reviews exist (though not in Acoustic Guitar, as Heritage exclusively or mostly makes electrics, I believe). I will contact the guitarists wikiproject to see if any reviews can be found. However, I do believe that the book coverage of the company is sufficient to establish that this company has been noted. Nick Graves 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to be notable enough. The only commentary on the company that I've found so far is all on sites that sell Heritage Guitars, and the comments are very similar to each other, probably based on material supplied by the company. -- Donald Albury 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not determined by online sources alone. The company has receieved nontrivial coverage by at least two books unaffiliated with the company (those are just what I found on my own bookshelf--other sources are likely out there). Nick Graves 16:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to those books. They may indeed be reliable sources about the company, but that does not establish notability either. Judging from the titles, both books are about guitars (or electric guitars) in general, and mention in such books does not establish notability. I would be more impressed with a substantial published source (book, feature article in a general-interest magazine or well-established music/guitar magazine, etc.) discussing the company in particular. -- Donald Albury 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you're setting the bar pretty high for notability. WP:Notability states that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." The two books now cited provide such coverage of the company. That the books are not entirely dedicated to covering the company does not make the coverage trivial. The coverage is more than a mention--the Bacon book provides several historical details about the company's founding, while the Freeth & Alexander book dedicates a two-page spread to the company. I don't see how it is a mark against notability that the company is mentioned in books about guitars. What better place to find information about a guitar-making company than in a book about guitars? I am certain that coverage of the company can be found in well-established music or guitar magazines, but do not have access to such. I have made a request of WikiProject Guitarists to find such coverage. In the meantime, I think that the two book sources provide sufficient reason to keep the article. Nick Graves 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - not to split hairs, but "two" does not equal "multiple". If something is notable enough to be included in WP, it will have been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
 * Comment: My dictionaries differ on this. The American Heritage says multiple means more than one, while the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary equates multiple with several, which means more than two. Nick Graves 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable guitar manufacturer with a lengthy history. Plus a long list of notable endorsers/users to boot. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a very notable company. And per Anger22 &mdash; Arjun 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have withheld a vote awaiting to see if I could verify the two book sources but I just cannot get hold of them quickly. Therefore, based upon available reviews of the books, I am confident we can assume good faith that the authors of this page have represented the contents of the books accurately and that the current sources in the article are substantial enough to establish notability. I still think further sources can be found; but as a musician I know that laying one's hands on archives of periodicals like Guitar Player Magazine and Musician (magazine) where further sources can be found is a truly daunting and time-consuming task, that usually requires the researcher to travel a significant distance to the archive site. CyberAnth 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Dalbury above. Google search does not reveal independent and compelling sources. The books user mentions are on "The Electric guitar" –, , and not the company. It does not meet the threshold as put forward by WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. See Criteria for companies and corporations on WP:CORP. Common sense tells me multiple is much more than two. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:54, 11 January 2007 (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.