Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hughes & Kettner


 * 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. 3 keeps, 1 weak delete and has been live for 27 days. Result is Keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hughes & Kettner

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing about the company at all, unsourced list of people who use its products, which is not a criterion for notability either for companies or music as far as I know. No refs, just a link to the company website, seems to have no function other than to promote the brand. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added 3 sources, book and website. Would that be enough? I claim to have no COI with this company ! Barakafrit2 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I'm not sure about the book entry, but the first review is not from a reliable sources and the second is a passing mention. If it had been a feature article on the amps or the company, that would have mad a difference in my opinion. My Google search reveals entries from a lot of music stores, fan forums and sales sites (like ebay). https://www.gearnews.com/manufacturer/hughes-kettner/ lists some of the company's recent press releases. If they had listed other sources, that too would have made a difference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Walter Görlitz, an Amazon book review is not RS, and is flagged up as unreliable by the script too Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The publisher of the book is Voyageur Press. Just because the link in the article is to Amazon does not mean it's an Amazon book review. I found it on Google books and the half-page review of one pedal doesn't change my !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

So, what's next? Do you guys (watching here) think it will be deleted? Because if you think so, then I'll just stop working on it. I'm not administrator so I am powerless, but what puzzles me is: why that one and not.. at least half of the other articles referenced on Category:Guitar_amplifier_manufacturers ! Because they either are already tagged as "refimprove" or "Unreferenced" or, if not already tagged, have little or no sources (and many are of way less notoriety that H&K, trust me. Oh, no, don't trust me, instead search these brands on any online musical instruments store.)
 * Keep (not sure how to express that...). I tried to expand the article, spend already some time on it, but I realize that it is pretty hard to find good secondary sources. I also changed the Amazon link to Google books (@Walter Görlitz, I never meant that to suggest it was a Amazon review, it was just a link).

For example: So, shall you guys also delete these too? I must admit I am quite confused, because I have the feeling that the H&K article has its place on WP, compared to many of these articles. So why would one delete H&K? Thanks for sharing your views.
 * Rick-Tone
 * Soultone
 * Paul_Cornford (pretty much nothing here...)
 * Echolette (also German, but wayyy less known in business than H&K!)
 * Diezel (no sources at all, pretty much promotional, whole catalog is listed!)
 * Electromuse
 * Moody_Amplifiers
 * ... and others

PS: And, again, (but that seems to be important so I restate that): I have no COI with that brand !

Barakafrit2 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is not a valid keep rationale. SK2242 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The two new references still do not help. I looked at the listed articles and PRODed all but one of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right, but that is not what I meant. What I meant is "why don't you tag the pages I linked for deletion?". It would be logical if you support deletion of this one. Why aren't the pages tagged as unverified also nominated for deletion (real question!)Barakafrit2 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see pages holding references such as "That-magazine, 1982, page X", with no link, unverifiable (ping me, I'll provide!). And you accept that, instead of sources with a link? This could be understood as "go on, just add some dummy reference like "Guitar Player, november 1982, issue 73, page 132", but I don't do that kind of thing. (and, sorry, but I am not experienced enough to know what "PRODing" a source is).
 * So, guys, just do as you feel, but I don't get it. I think I've spent enough time on this, I've tried to do my best but seems not enough, so bye. I hope you'll never have to complain about the lack of honest volunteers on WP. Because this only started because I mentioned this page as a comparison with another brand whose page got (again) deleted by User talk:Jimfbleak when I attempted to create it. He kindly explained the reasons to me (which I'm ok with), but also, as a reaction (?), he tagged this one for deletion, and here we are. So I thought that I might as well try to improve this one (which is what I did), to gain some experience. Apparently, I failed (?).Barakafrit2 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, User talk:Walter Görlitz, just noticed you did tag for deletion the pages I linked above (and I now know what PROD means). All... but one, as you say (Paul_Cornford). And, just guess, what makes that page different from the others (besides being a 3 lines article, of course...)? Answer: it holds some unverifiable sources! So, that seems ok for you, apparently. Ok, granted. But let me say this is a real problem, because it directly encourages fake sources on WP.Barakafrit2 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the links we send your way. I linked WP:RS as "reliable sources". It will explain what a reliable source it. In short, a reliable source is determined by who created the source and how it was created, not whether we can or cannot access it from our computers. For instance a 1982 Guitar Player edition is not likely online. It is likely a reliable source. The individual article will determine if it is reliable or not. If it's just a press release or similar, then it's not. If it's a passing mention, or a short review, then that does not help to confer notability on the subject.
 * As for lack of honest volunteers, we recognize that there's a learning curve. I saw many articles that I tried to improve get deleted until I understood what the project was trying to create and by what criteria we determined whether a subject was or was not notable. I would understand it if you tucked your tail and ran. It might make more sense to eitehr change the criteria for musical instrument companies, or other category, or just continue to look for reliable sources for these companies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for being late in my answer. I just wanted to comment back on your last message, because I'm afraid it does not address my point. First, thank you for your time you took to consider my views and explaining how things work. Yes, I fully understand what a reliable source is, and I am ok with the main idea, sure. Online doesn't mean its reliable. But you didn't address the point that theses sources (yes, I'm talking about the ones that are on Paul_Cornford, but that is just an example) are unverifiable. Oh, well it could be (by requesting/buying/searching the old magazine paper issues. But who's gonna do that, seriously? So, what am I supposed to learn here? Up to here, my answer is that WP administrators are ok with that kind of sources (if your views are shared with the others, condition which I consider true up to here). I personally feel that this is some kind of issue, because that means that: 1-some pages can be edited/created with completely fake sources that nobody is going to check, as I have told above, and be considered perfectly valid ! Although some online sources won't be, because their content about the topic is just some "passing mention", as you say. 2-some (potentially real) sources can be irrelevant. How about these off-line sources? How can I judge if they are not just some "short review", or "press release" (in that case, I'd make a bet on the fact that it is, precisely!). You did not tag that page for deletion like the others but you probably didn't have access to theses sources to check if they fulfilled the requirements: as you can't, I must believe you just assumed they are... Seriously?

So I must acknowledge the fact that you guys probably consider that this is unavoidable and that you just bet on people's honesty. Well, why not, but I don't think it is a good idea. Barakafrit2 (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of sources available. I'm just going to run off and improve the article. When Music Radar says the Rotosphere is one of the best effects pedals of its kind, it behooves us to sit up and take notice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the article. The majority were either unreliable sources or passing mentions of the products used The excptions are https://www.guitarworld.com/news/hughes-and-kettner-unveils-tiny-50w-spirit-nano-amp-heads https://www.musicradar.com/news/hughes-and-kettners-new-spirit-nano-heads-could-be-affordable-micro-marvels and https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Hughes_Kettner_Tubemeister_5_Amp_Review. I don't think this quite meets GNG, but will let the closing admin decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more sources available; I did a Google News search for "Hughes & Kettner amp review" and it brought back loads of things. It'll just take a while to work them into the article. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It's interesting to find out where Walter Görlitz's PRODs came from. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.