Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fender Geddy Lee Jazz Bass

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 merge all to Fender Jazz Bass. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Geddy Lee Jazz Bass

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

Non-notable issues of an arguably notable commercial product. These artist-endorsed versions are production models with slightly different options and features, endorsed by celebrity musicians for commercial recognition. Substantial and adequate references aren't available to demonstrate the notability of the products.

I'm also nominating these articles for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all three to Fender Jazz Bass. These are just signature models of the Jazz Bass and should be covered in that article's already existent "Signature models" section. IF the merge is limited to well-sourced info this should not overwhelm the article. — Gwalla | Talk 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I am not seeing the coverage necessary for a standalone article, nor are size issues significant enough to require a split. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above editors. Not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant standalone articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 21 December 2015 (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.