Talk:Fender Cyclone

Suggested for Deletion

There's no reason to delete this article. It provides content which describes a large previously manufactured component of a major company's product line and is within the context of something with considerable historical value for many people. Jgassens 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a minor guitar that did not attain commercial success, and was retooled twice and then discontinued. Considerable historic value is something like the Stratocaster, Telecaster, or Les Paul. At the least, the Cyclone II and Cyclone need to be merged into one article. These models of guitar are not sufficiently notable on their own to support individual articles. —ptk✰fgs 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is still not asserted here or in Fender Cyclone II. The claim that all Fender guitars are notable by default is simply not persuasive. A merge won't fix this. —ptk✰fgs 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All guitar builds seem to have articles. Failing that it could be merged with the similar Fender Jaguar or Fender Bronco. Tom walker 22:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they absolutely don't. Think for a second about all the acoustic guitars from major manufacturers, and even non-notable guitars from notable manufacturers (Mosrite archtops! Danelectro Convertible!). Hell, we still don't have articles for every notable guitar (Mosrite Ventures Model?). We don't, can't, and should not have an article for every guitar build. Just like for any other topic, the standard for inclusion here should be notability. —ptk✰fgs 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with delitionists, is that they are inherently uncreative and unable to arrive at a reasonable solution at these impasses. Instead of trying to preserve information, they seem to set out to make an encyclopedia that will fit on a shelf and, to meet that end, they'll gladly delete articles they've considered trivial. The delitionist doesn't not ask himself, what to do with the content in this article, which is relevant to people interested in these guitars, but (as presently lacking a persuasive argument) are undeserving of their own article.Jgassens 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea alright you don't have to have a go at me. There are shed loads of ESP ones, they didn't seem notable to me alot of them. I still think merger as above is appropriate. Tom walker 15:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with a merger. But what should we merge it with? Jgassens 22:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that nobody seems to know what to merge it with shows the problem with "notability" deletions. Just because one person here does not consider it a notable guitar does not mean it isn't. It simply means that person does not know the guitar. It's a popular model in Japan, for instance, used by artists ranging from the pillows to Kimura Kaela (who went to #3 on the singles charts with a song she played with this guitar, so it's not like she's a nobody). The information in this article should be preserved. If it 'must' be merged, it should be merged with either the Mustang or the Jag-Stang (its body is based on the Mustang, certain hardware is from the Jaguar, and it was created to deal with issues with the Jag-Stang that had been introduced two years earlier and was proving problematic). --Badasscat 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also The Korean and Squier models

There was also a set neck Fender Cyclone model with Seymour Duncan pick ups made in Korea from 2004 and a Squier US only version from 2003 and the 2012 reissue which should be added to the article.81.111.126.82 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Squier Cyclone

Why no mention at all of the Squier Cyclone, despite the fact 'Squier Cyclone' redirects to this article?220.240.153.58 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Still nothing?Robbmonster (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)