Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Bennett 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 withdrawal. While I still personally believe that the article fails certain notability guidelines, it is clear that consensus is against me when the only user siding with me in over a month thinks that the topic is notable but the article simply beyond repair. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bennett Guitars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage only consists of a couple of reviews and some incidental mentions. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. PROD was contested by an anonymous editor editor (who, going by his edit history, appears to be a SPA). When I asked for his reasoning, no response was given. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article certainly needs improvement, I see just enough online to say it might be worth a chance. —Ed!^(talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say that I think this article is beyond repair. A quick look at the issues brought up in the banner was enough to persuade me of that. This article needs to be deleted as soon as possible, then I will submit a request in WP:GUITAR for the article to be started again, as I think it is important enough to solicit it's own article. ~User: Sebread
Weak keep. I would have said delete but if someone thinks it's notable enough that they'll create the article immediately afterwards - then it should simply be rewritten and not deleted. No article is beyond repair when one can simply brush the slate clean and start writing. --Ifnord (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ifnord, as AfD is not for cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.