Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RG Premium


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RG Premium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article contains numerous inaccuracies and is out of date such that the topic is not covered in sufficient detail. As a current product line, the subject is evolving, but this article appears to have no editor or sponsor who has made any serious effort to keep it updated since its creation. There appears to be little or no effort to maintain this article as evidenced by the citation warning that has been unaddressed since 2012. Further, the scope of this article seems inappropriate as there is already an article covering the Ibanez RG series; as the Premium line is a sub-set of that it would seem that this could all be covered in that article such that perhaps a merge would be appropriate should anyone feel the content of this article has value. I would submit that perhaps an article covering the entire Ibanez Premium line (which includes other guitar and bass series than just the RG series) would be more appropriate if someone were interested in creating such an article. As it stands this topic seems like one that could be (and is) covered more accurately and completely outside of WP. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. My initial thought on this was to Keep it because the rationale given in the nomination are largely reasons to improve the article not delete it.  However the acid test is whether there are WP:RS which talk about this particular guitar.  My searches have failed to find anything. The first few pages of Google results are sites which sell the guitar, or user-submitted stuff or items which are obviously regurgitated press releases and therefore not independent. Google books and scholar results aren't any more enlightening. Neiltonks (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (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.