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 no consensus. v/r - T P 01:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SKATTERBRANE[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. This was a contested speedy deletion, and later a Prod tag was removed by the Newbie creator. It appears a musical group, which is marginally notable. I'm leaning towards keeping. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move to Skatterbrane or Skatterbrane Pickups. The subject is not a musical group but an Arizona-based manufacturer of guitar pickups. There are a decent number of Google hits for the name but most of them lead to forums discussions; the brand seems to at least be somewhat well-known among guitarists. Test piggy (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPIt is true there is a band called skatterBRAIN. You will find that the PAF manufacturer--SKATTERBRANE--has a strong following in guitarist circles, and is featured in various forums, youtube clips. I was writing a very long discussion as to why the article should not be deleted, but it was blocked somehow. SKATTERBRANE is very relevant in the PAF pickup modern variant section of the PAF main article. Not only is SKATTERBRANE publish on line with Premier Guitar magazine, but an article is also featured in their physical monthly magazine. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Kink56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - this article is about the pickup which seems well respected but not a big mainstream product and doesn't have the kind of following or widespread coverage that would qualify under WP:GNG. andy (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ SKATTERBRANE is also well known in Japan, and has a strong following in Europe, Australia, and two French guitar builders feature their pickups in their builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Kink56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~KEEP~~ Skatterbrane is a very worthy maker of 50's style guitar pickups, especially PAF styled pickups. For the qualities of Tone and Soul in a responsive pickup Skatterbranes are in the very top tier of such pickups being made today, if not above all others, and deservedly are highly esteemed for these qualities. 68Strat— 68Strat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. – most likely a sock puppet of Kink56

~~Keep~~ - The pickup is well respected and has a following of people who value the tone of their guitars, but i think the article could be cleaned up matt —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC). – most likely a sock puppet of Kink56— Theredgrape (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – not sure why it's been AfD'd if the nominator thinks it should be kept. Doesn't that technically nullify the deletion? I'm leaning towards delete due to a lack of general notability. I've noticed that the article creator has voted several times so I've crossed through them. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In procedural nominations, sometimes the point is to bring the nomination forward for someone else, even if the nominee is unsure about deletion. This may be done because (a) an unregistered user, who can't complete the AfD process, thinks an article needs to be deleted, or (b) a proposed or speedy deletion is declined. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (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.